Oral Answers to Questions
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I do believe that and the legislation requires it of clinical commissioning groups and health and wellbeing boards. The relationship being built up between clinical leadership in the NHS and democratic leadership through health and wellbeing boards is an instrumental part of delivering that integrated care.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The year 2011 saw the biggest ever fall in public satisfaction with the national health service. It was also the right hon. Gentleman’s first full year in office. Does he think that those two facts are in any way related?
Mr Lansley
No, I do not. The right hon. Gentleman might also care to note that the same survey demonstrated a lower level of satisfaction with the NHS in Wales than in England, but let us leave that to one side.
That survey of 1,000 people asked whether they were satisfied with the way in which the NHS was being run. I was not satisfied. We were in the midst of reform, and we are changing how the NHS is run. Government Members were demonstrating to the public that improvement is necessary and possible in the NHS and that we should not be satisfied with the situation. What is more interesting is that a survey of 70,000 people that we published today demonstrates that 92% of the public—an unprecedentedly high level—who received care from the NHS said that it was good, very good or excellent.
Andy Burnham
How out of touch can he get, Mr Speaker? I would have suggested some work shadowing on the NHS front line to get him back in touch, but I forgot that he cannot go into a hospital without a police escort these days. Let me tell him why satisfaction with A and E is down: he lowered the target and missed it repeatedly, leaving nearly a quarter of a million people waiting longer than four hours. Today we have found out why his waiting list statistics do not match people’s real experience: managers are changing clinical criteria and removing people from lists. If he wants to regain people’s trust, why not start today by ordering an immediate inquiry and ending this unacceptable practice of waiting list recategorisation?
Mr Lansley
I spend more time in hospitals than the right hon. Gentleman has hot dinners, I suspect—[Interruption.] The weekend before last, I spent two days in hospitals and I did not require any policemen to be there.
Let me make it clear. In A and E, we have 96.6% of patients being seen, treated and discharged within four hours. More to the point, the latest data on A and E show that the average time spent there came down from 57 minutes to 49. On the question of referral to treatment, we inherited more than 209,000 patients across the NHS who were waiting beyond 18 weeks for their treatment. According to the latest data, that figure went down by nearly 50,000. We are delivering for patients better and improving care. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would get on his feet—perhaps he will do it now—thank the NHS and congratulate it on the improving care, rather than trying to find the one thing wrong with it—
Health Transition Risk Register
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Back in the rose garden, the talk was of the most open and transparent Government ever. Today, those words are as worthless as “no rise in tuition fees” and “no top-down re-organisation of the NHS”. We have heard self-serving rubbish today from a Secretary of State who does not want patients and the public to know the whole truth about his NHS re-organisation, but he has been brought here by the sheer tenacity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
My right hon. Friend has been completely vindicated by the Information Rights Tribunal, which was scathing about the way in which the Government have conducted their re-organisation of the NHS, their failure to give an indication of their wide-ranging plans before their hastily drawn-up White Paper, and their decision to implement them on the ground before a Bill had been presented to the House.
After last Thursday, in interviews following the local election results, Government Members all promised to listen, but what is the first thing that they do? They take this unanimous ruling from a judge-led legal tribunal and tear it in two with trademark arrogance—a Government who believe that they are born to rule and above the law. In doing so, they have made a major departure from the established policy on freedom of information, and from the precedent set by the previous Government.
Hitherto, the ministerial veto has been used on only three occasions, all related to Cabinet discussions; applying the veto to operational matters of domestic policy breaks that precedent. As such, it is a major step backwards towards secrecy and closed government. Is there not now a real risk that other Departments will cite this shoddy decision as a precedent and seek to withhold public information that, in the spirit of policy intention of the Freedom of Information Act, should be placed in the public domain?
Where does this decision leave the Information Commissioner and, indeed, the Information Tribunal? Have they not been completely undermined by the Cabinet’s decision? The truth is that there is confusion in government about the decision, and the Secretary of State has failed to clear it up today. In his statement on Tuesday he said clearly that the risk register would not be published following Cabinet agreement and that it was a “final decision” by the Secretary of State, but just hours later on the “Today” programme the Health Minister Earl Howe said:
“We have every intention of publishing the risk register in due course, when we think the time is right”.
I have a simple question: will it be published or not? Was the Secretary of State’s Minister speaking for him and his Department when he made that statement, and if so will the Secretary of State tell us what his Minister means by “when…the time is right”? Most people, including those on the tribunal, felt that the time was right when the Bill was going through the House of Commons—before the right hon. Gentleman shamelessly rammed it on to the statute book.
The shambles is not just in the Department of Health, however; it is right across government. The shadow Leader of the House has just left the Chamber, but in a blog post earlier this week he said—
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Deputy Leader of the House.
Andy Burnham
The Deputy Leader of the House said that
“it would also be right to publish as much of what is contained in the risk register as possible”.
He said that this week—that the risk register should have been published. How many more Ministers and coalition MPs do not agree with the Cabinet’s decision?
Most worrying, however, is the confusion over freedom of information policy. The Secretary of State, in his statement earlier this week, said:
“If such risk registers were regularly disclosed, it is likely that their form and content would change”.
But later in the same statement he said that this was an “exceptional case”. Which is it? Do the Government now have a blanket ban on the publication of any risk register, even if ordered to do so by a judge, or was this an exceptional case? If it was the latter, how did it meet the exceptional criteria that Government rules require? We need answers, as again this Government are breaking the precedent set by the last Government. Following a ruling from the Information Commissioner, we released the Heathrow third runway risk register. We never called for the publication of all risk registers, but said that each case should be judged on its merits. Inconveniently for the Minister and the Conservative party, that ruling makes a clear differentiation between the strategic risk register on the one hand and the transition risk register on the other, as I have argued all the way through this discussion.
The Secretary of State’s argument today hinges on the “safe space” argument—he says that if we did not have a safe space, it may change future risk registers. Is he aware that the tribunal considered that point in detail but concluded that there was no evidence presented to us that the release of the Heathrow risk register had a chilling effect on their use by Government? Was the Secretary of State’s argument not tested in court and did it not fail in court? Is he not now showing a blatant disregard for the law? He said today that it “is a matter of principle and not a matter of law”, but it is a matter of principle and of law—freedom of information is the principle and the Freedom of Information Act is the law. He should be following the law that enacts that principle, but he has taken a step away from it today.
The Treasury website still has this statement on risk policy:
“Government will make available its assessments of risks that affect the public, how it has reached its decisions, and how it will handle the risk. It will also do so where the development of new policies poses a potential risk to the public.”
I ask again: if that is no longer the Government’s policy on risk management, when will it be removed from the Treasury’s website?
In conclusion, the Government are in disarray on many fronts. The NHS belongs to the people of this country, not Ministers. If Ministers cannot be open about the risks that they are taking with the NHS, they should not be taking those risks. That is a simple principle.
The truth is that this has been a cowardly decision from a Government on the run who are now too frightened to face up to the consequences of their own incompetence. The real reason for the veto is that publication would have shown that the warnings from doctors, nurses, midwives and patients were echoed in private by civil servants but the Government just ignored them. This is a Cabinet cover-up of epic proportions—a Government closing ranks and covering each other’s backs because they know that the public would never forgive them if they could see the scale of the risks that the Government are taking with the national health service.
Mr Lansley
Most of that was synthetic indignation. I am really surprised; the right hon. Gentleman cannot have read any of the review of the risk register that I published on Tuesday. That set out, in detail, all the risk areas carried in the risk register and the mitigating actions that have been taken. There is in no sense any area of risk identified 18 months ago that has not been put into the public domain in a proper form—one that reflects not only the character of those risks, but how those risks have been subsequently addressed.
The right hon. Gentleman is completely confused about the issue. The point of the veto was to confirm that it was not in the public interest for the risk register in December 2010 to be published in relation to the November 2010 document. That point was made very clearly. Acting as we did was not in any sense above the law; it was absolutely in accordance with the law. It is in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and with the structure of the management of risk. For the further clarification of the House, on Tuesday I published the risk management strategy associated with the transition programme, so the right hon. Gentleman can see that it is exactly in line with how the Government manage such risks.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our intention to publish the risk register. We will publish it at a point when it would not prejudice the exemption for officials for the formulation and development of policy. There will come a time when it is appropriate to do so, when doing so will not prejudice that exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.
The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to suggest that no evidence was presented to the first-tier tribunal relating to the potentially damaging effect of publication under these circumstances. As the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell made those risks very clear to the tribunal. Who is better placed than him to say that? He must know that in another place, during debates on this precise issue of publication and relevance to the legislation, other Cabinet Secretaries and Members clearly stated their view that the publication of the transition risk register would run that risk.
The right hon. Gentleman is speaking directly contrary to his own view. When he was a Minister, he said in relation to a request for publication of a departmental risk register:
“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]
He is making an absolutely spurious distinction between the transition register and the strategic register. [Interruption.] It is no good him shouting. The overlap between the two registers and the character of the formulation and development of policy—
Oral Answers to Questions
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Last week in the emergency debate, the Secretary of State said:
“Risk registers…are not a prediction of the future. They set out a worst-case scenario”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 676.]
I now have an early version of the risk register that civil servants gave him in September 2010. Risk No. 7 of his reorganisation was that “Financial control is lost.” That was red rated and, according to the document, likely to happen with major consequences. Is it not clear that last week the Secretary of State gave an inaccurate description of the risk registers he saw, and should he not now come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record?
Mr Burns
May I reassure you, Mr Speaker, if not so much the right hon. Gentleman, that my right hon. Friend did not mislead anyone? The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is the same as he and his predecessors pursued under the last Labour Government—and was pursued under the Thatcher and Major Governments—which is that Ministers do not comment on leaked documents.
Andy Burnham
The rest of the world is, and we would be interested to hear the Government’s views on it. Here we have it in full colour. It is not the worst-case scenario, as the Secretary of State claimed, but 43 very real and predictable risks, 21 of which are red rated and 14 likely to happen with major consequences. They include:
“Emergencies…less well managed…more failures…GP consortia go bust or have to cut services…performance dips and key staff lost”.
Is it not now clear for all to see that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have knowingly taken major risks with the national health service, ignored warnings from civil servants and kept those risks secret from Parliament in order to get their unnecessary Bill through?
Mr Burns
I am not quite sure which word in my last answer the right hon. Gentleman did not understand, so I will repeat it. Like previous Governments, we do not comment on leaked documents. Instead of coming to the Dispatch Box and talking down the fantastic work that nurses and doctors do day in and day out, why does he not read the quarter, the latest copy of which is full of facts about how the NHS is improving its performance and delivering better quality care for patients throughout England?
Health and Social Care Bill
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of whether the House should defer consideration of Lords Amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill until after disclosure of the NHS transitional risk register.
My right hon. Friends and I are grateful for your agreement to give the House this opportunity, Mr Speaker. On this of all days we should be celebrating what a much-valued social institution has done to bind our nation together throughout the 60 years of Her Majesty’s reign. Instead, we gather to dismantle it. A health service that is judged by international experts to be one of, if not the, best health service in the world is about to be inexplicably and unjustifiably broken apart by an ideological Bill ending 63 years of NHS history.
This is a difficult day, but what makes it all the harder to stomach for people watching is the manner in which things are happening. People outside will struggle to understand how Members of this House could make such momentous decisions without having carefully considered all the facts and all the evidence. The truth is that Members will go through the Lobby tonight without knowing the full implications of what it means for the NHS in their constituencies. How do they begin to justify that to their constituents, to patients who depend on the NHS and to staff who devote their lives to it? We have argued from the beginning that the Government’s decision to combine an unprecedented financial challenge in the NHS with the biggest ever top-down reorganisation has exposed the NHS to greater risk, and the truth is that we are beginning to see the effects of that. In our constituencies, they have already dismantled the existing structures of the NHS before the new ones are in place, leading to a loss of grip just when it was most needed. So we are seeing A and E waits getting longer, staff shortages leading towards A and E closures, and patients in our surgeries beginning to complain of treatments being restricted or of longer waits.
We have also heard from the health professions—from GPs, nurses, midwives and physios—who one by one have made clear their considered professional judgment that, on the balance of risks, it would be safer to abandon the Bill than to proceed with the upheaval of reorganisation. Ministers by their actions are putting the NHS at greater risk, but even today this House does not know the assessment that was given to Ministers or the precise nature and scale of those risks.
Andy Burnham
I do not plan to give way because I want other Members to have the chance to contribute to the debate.
Ministers want the House to back the gamble they are taking with the NHS without having the courtesy to tell it the odds. The Information Commissioner thinks we should see the risk register and so does the Information Rights Tribunal, which brought forward its ruling so that it could influence our proceedings. If the NHS starts to struggle because of all the change being thrown at it and if services in some parts of the country start to fail, how will Members of the House respond when people come to our surgeries and ask whether we did everything we could to anticipate the dangers? We will remind them of the truth—that Government Members put politics before the national health service and signed up to a reckless reorganisation without knowing all the facts.
Andy Burnham
I will give way once to the right hon. Gentleman and then I will finish my remarks.
Mr Redwood
I am very grateful. When Labour introduced private contractors to carry out NHS treatments, did that undermine the NHS?
Andy Burnham
No, because we brought down NHS waiting lists to their lowest ever levels and we left patient satisfaction at its highest ever level. Those same waiting lists are going up under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and he should be ashamed of that. He will not publish the information about the risk to waiting times because he is frightened of putting it before the House and the public, but we will remind them of the truth.
The Government proclaimed that they were going to be the most open and transparent Government in history. Today, it still says on the Treasury website in a statement of the Government’s principles for risk management:
“Government will make available its assessments of risks that affect the public, how it has reached its decisions, and how it will handle the risk. It will also do so where the development of new policies poses a potential risk to the public.”
May I suggest that the Government take down that misleading statement of policy? Their actions have left it in tatters, together with the grand claims of openness and transparency. The tribunal, they will say today, has not given us its reasons. Ministers will try to argue that the public and Parliament’s right to know about the impact of their policy decisions is outweighed by the public interest in the preservation of a safe space for policy advice.
Those arguments were considered, first, by the Information Commissioner, and subsequently by the Information Rights Tribunal. They found the opposite to be the case: that the public interest lay in full disclosure. But it does not matter; Ministers are simply re-running the arguments of a case that they have lost. They have no leave to reopen the substance of that argument, but they are not the only arguments that they have lost.
In an attempt to rescue the Bill last year, the Prime Minister made a number of claims for it. They cover issues that we know are in the local and regional risk registers which have been published. First, he said the Bill was needed as the NHS does not
“deliver the patient-centred, responsive care we all want to see”.
He cited heart services and claimed that someone in this country is twice as likely to die from a heart attack as someone in France. That was before new research in January reported a 50% fall in heart attack deaths in the past decade.
Then the Prime Minister said that cancer services were failing people, compared with other countries. That was before new research in November 2011 which showed that the NHS in the past decade achieved the biggest drop in cancer deaths of any comparable health system in the world. Thirdly, the Prime Minister and all the Ministers on the Government Front Bench have routinely trotted out the same script for years—that NHS productivity has declined in the past decade. That was before new research on NHS productivity from Professor Nick Black published in February in The Lancet showed that, far from falling, NHS productivity increased in the past decade at the same time as the NHS achieved patient satisfaction.
One by one the Government’s arguments for the Bill have fallen apart. They have comprehensively lost the argument. They have convinced nobody and now they are running scared, resorting to the only remaining option of ramming the Bill through Parliament before they are required in law to publish the real assessment of their policies.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will join me in wishing well 11-year-old Bailey Stark in my constituency as he and his family cope with his condition that means that he is unable to swallow. His mother is worried sick about the changes in the health service, which might mean that he will not get the treatment he requires in Newcastle. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that risk is all the more reason for publishing all risks, as we should know the truth about what is happening to our NHS? [Interruption.]
Andy Burnham
Members shout “Scaremongering” from the Government Benches, but the Government will not publish the evidence to back up their claims. We have read the local and regional risk registers which warn precisely of the case that my hon. Friend mentions—of damage to the continuity of care, risks to patient safety, longer waits for cancer patients, risks to child safeguarding. Those are the facts in the regional risk registers and they are the facts that Ministers are trying to withhold from the public.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my surprise and sadness that the Liberal Democrats, who were once the defenders of freedom of information, are now trooping through the Lobby in support of a dangerous Bill shrouded and protected by the restriction of information?
Andy Burnham
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. The Liberal Democrats once derided the Freedom of Information Act as too weak. Today they cower behind it, trying to use any scrap of protection they can find within it to prevent the publication of the information that patients and the public deserve to have. That says everything that people need to know about today’s Liberal Democrat party.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
I will not give way. I will now bring my remarks to a close.
We are clear that the risks in the Bill arise not just from the organisational turbulence that the Secretary of State is inflicting on the NHS, but from the specific policies in the Bill. Today we table a package of amendments in a last-ditch attempt to provide the necessary safeguards that the Liberal Democrats failed to secure in another place—
Andy Burnham
They are safeguards in light of the huge potential for the conflict of interests in the award of contracts under the “any qualified provider” provisions, which will not be addressed by a simple register of interests, and safeguards on a stronger local HealthWatch—the Government have watered that down since the Bill left this House of Commons. There are safeguards too—
Mr Dorrell
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he just clarify one issue of principle for the House? Are Labour Front Benchers now arguing that every Government Department should publish its strategic risk register? If not, can he justify his proposition that the Department of Health should do so uniquely?
Andy Burnham
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Information Commissioner’s ruling on the decision about a third runway at Heathrow. That is the precedent his Government should be following, but instead they have chosen to defy the commissioner. It was the Labour party that published the decision on a third runway at Heathrow, and I refer him to the ruling from the Information Rights Tribunal, which made a clear distinction between the strategic risk register, which covers all the uncontrollable risks that any Department will face, and the transition risk register, which deals specifically with the effects of Ministers’ decisions, in this case on the NHS. There is a real difference between the two. The tribunal said that the transition register should be published. His Government should respect the law and publish today.
We will table amendments to provide safeguards today, but in future it will not just be the cover-up of the risk register that we will have to worry about—that is just a taste of things to come in the new NHS. Members will have to get used to the words “commercial confidentiality” when inquiring about local services, because that is what they will find in the NHS that Ministers are creating. Let us look at the risks inherent in the proposed relaxation of the private patient income cap. One risk assessment that Ministers have published—the revised impact assessment—states that
“there is a risk that private patients may be prioritised above NHS patients, resulting in a growth in waiting times for NHS patients.”
That is all they have told us, but that alone is reason enough to oppose the Bill.
The only hope I can give people worried about the future of the NHS is that this might be the end of the Bill, but it is just the beginning of our campaign. The NHS will find a way of working around these changes and will not deteriorate overnight. We will be working to mitigate the worst effects of the Bill. This is the eleventh hour; our only hope would be a change of heart from the Liberal Democrats. We will call a vote on this motion and ask people to vote against it to show that we have not had enough time to debate these important issues.
I respect those Liberal Democrat Members who have had the courage to defy their orange book leadership, and I respect their grass-roots members who did the same at their spring conference, but the truth is that from today the Liberal Democrats will be remembered not only for tuition fees, but as the party that stole people’s votes in May 2012 in order to secure jobs for themselves and sell out the national health service. They could have stood up to the Prime Minister and enforced the coalition agreement, but they chose not to do so.
That brings us back to where we started: a Bill that nobody voted for, rammed through this place tonight in the teeth of near-universal professional opposition and in defiance of a major legal ruling; a Bill about which no Member of this House can look their constituents in the eye and say they have a mandate to support. Tonight Government Members will inflict this Bill on the NHS without knowing the potential damage it can do to the health service in their constituencies. They have made their choice; I have made ours. Although on a day like today it is hard for me to give any encouragement to people worried about what the Government are doing, I can at least say this: we will repeal this legislation at the first opportunity and restore the N in NHS. We have given this fight everything that we had. All I can say is that our fight will go on to protect and restore the Labour party’s finest achievement.
Henry Smith
I think the biggest risk to the national health service is if we do not reform it and move it forward. It needs reform to stay relevant to the needs of all our constituents. I find the Opposition’s position strange—I would put it down to political opportunism, but I am happy to take another intervention if Opposition Members want to state their case—given what happened with the three requests made when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Secretary of State and under his predecessor.
Andy Burnham
Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between a strategic risk register and a transition risk register?
Henry Smith
I believe I do understand the difference between the different types of risk register, but if we simply stand still and have inertia in our health service, it will become less relevant.
The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) accused members of my party of being chancers. I prefer to consider us as reformers, and only if we embrace reform will we be able to provide a better NHS.
Dr Wollaston
I am not trying to trivialise the issue; believe me, I understand how vital the NHS is to all our constituents and to patients. My view is that the transition risk register has been elevated to a status far out of proportion to what it merits. I completely understand the points made by Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong—very experienced civil servants who tell us that they would feel constrained in giving full and frank advice. However, we have seen how any detail can be taken out of all proportion in this House; we are all partly responsible for that. As I said, some of the shroud waving over this Bill has been disgraceful, and I know of patients who have been genuinely frightened by it. I would be prepared to see the risk register published, but I accept the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) that it has to be done on the basis of a clear understanding.
Andy Burnham
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I remember, however, a comment that she made to The Guardian, I believe, at the start of this process, when she said that this Bill was like throwing a hand grenade into the NHS. What has changed?
Dr Wollaston
There we go—a deliberate misrepresentation. After I made those comments, I wrote to senior colleagues and told them that what I had said was completely different. I was deliberately misquoted on that statement and have been consistently misquoted by Labour Members. They should go back and look at the original.
I feel that it would be reasonable to present all the risks, but it would be crucial for Members of all parties to recognise that we are talking about a lasting change. We would also need to see a change in how risks are extrapolated out of all proportion to what they represent and an end to the deliberate frightening of patients into believing that they will have to pay for health care, which has been a consistent feature of how this Bill has been misrepresented by Labour Members.
Andy Burnham
In the past few minutes, we have seen a perfect demonstration at the Dispatch Box of why the right hon. Gentleman has spent 20 months trying to sell this Bill to the country but has comprehensively failed to do so. He had nothing to say in response to the speeches of Opposition Members and he did not respond with appropriate seriousness to the points that we have put to the House, namely that it should not put through far-reaching changes to this country’s most valued institution without knowing all the facts. Not one Member can go through the Lobby and say that they know all the facts about what this Bill will do. Instead, what we have heard from the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is a rerun of the arguments that were heard in detail by the Information Commissioner and the Information Rights Tribunal. I have news for them all—and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—they lost. Those arguments have been heard, a ruling has been made and the Government should surely respect the law, and of all people, the hon. Member for Broxtowe should respect the law.
The Secretary of State said there was a very simple point—that the Government have a responsibility to respect the law. They are the Government who told us they would be the most open and transparent Government in history. What total nonsense. Our point is simple: he is passing a Bill with far-reaching implications for the NHS in England in defiance of a legal ruling that he should publish all the information about his Bill. He made three points that were simply wrong. He said that the transition risk register deals with the worst-case scenario. It does not. It deals with the likelihood of a range of events and the impact of those events, and gives a judgment about whether or not they can be mitigated and the likelihood of mitigation. Has he read his own risk register?
The Secretary of State made a point about the strategic and transition risk registers. Has he read the ruling from the Information Commissioner and has he understood the implications of what the Information Rights Tribunal said? They said that the Government should not publish the strategic risk register because it deals with uncontrollable risks that are outside the control of Ministers, but that the Minister should publish the transition risk register because that is what he is inflicting on the national health service.
Let us not forget that the Secretary of State has chosen to inflict the biggest ever top-down reorganisation on the national health service at this moment of greatest financial challenge. That was his decision. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ruled that out. He said that there would be no top-down reorganisation. The coalition agreement ruled it out, but the Secretary of State brought it forward. It was his decision and if he wants this Parliament to endorse his plan, he should have the courtesy of putting before Members all the information that he has seen, but he is not prepared to do that.
Why will the Secretary of State not publish this information? What has he got to hide? Is it the fact that it would prove that all the people who are lined up in opposition to his Bill are right—the doctors, the nurses, the midwives, the physios? Is it possible that they are right in their judgment that the Bill will cause more harm than good? Would not the pitiful levels of support that he still has for the Bill be wiped out by the publication of the risk register?
The Secretary of State made no argument today at the Dispatch Box. The Government are doing what they are doing in total defiance of the law, in the teeth of professional opposition. They do not have the permission of the people of this country to put the NHS through the biggest ever reorganisation in its history. They promised in their manifesto that they would not do it. The Prime Minister promised us that he would protect the NHS and there would be no top-down reorganisation, but the Government have introduced the biggest ever top-down reorganisation. They are making a catastrophic political mistake by doing so. We will remind them every day of the damage they have done to our national health service.
Question put.
Health and Social Care Bill
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham
It is important to begin by setting out the background to many of the amendments in this group. Despite the pause that the Government ordered for the Bill, they failed to allay fears about the creation of a market based on a 1980s utility privatisation, with Monitor acting as an economic regulator—a parallel drawn last November not by me, but by the King’s Fund in a report it published. That, more than anything else, has been behind the huge professional disquiet about the Bill that we have seen over recent weeks and months, with respected professional organisations coming out one after another to express their concern about the damage that will be done to the health service if hospital is pitted against hospital, doctor against doctor. That is where we start.
The Minister began his remarks by talking about the myths relating to part 3 of the Bill and objecting to some of the interpretation that I have just given. I do not know who he had in mind when talking about those myths, but it might have been the noble Baroness Williams. I will quote from an article she wrote in The Guardian on Monday 13 February. It is important because it explains the genesis of one of the amendments that the House is considering tonight. She acknowledged that there were:
“fears among the public and within the medical profession that clinical commissioning groups might become dependent on advice from powerful private health companies, and that the imposition of UK and European competition laws, addressed to markets and not to social goals, might destroy the public service principles of the NHS. In plain terms, this is often described as a fear of privatisation. These are issues that must be addressed.”
When the Minister talked disparagingly about myths, did he have the noble Baroness in mind? I think that he must have done, because in the same article she went on to suggest that the answer to the concerns and fears that she had correctly identified was to drop the whole of part 3. She wrote:
“What that would mean for the bill would be dropping the chapter on competition, and retaining Monitor as the regulator of prices and of the foundation trusts.”
I am not privy to the internal machinations of the Liberal Democrats, but I think that there must have been some wrangling and soul searching in the two weeks following the publication of that article, because by 27 February a letter had emerged that was co-signed by the noble Baroness and no less a figure than her party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister. The call to drop part 3 of the Bill, which had been made so eloquently in The Guardian two weeks earlier, had in fact turned into something very different. The letter stated that they needed to go further to amend the Bill in order
“to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market”.
If what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box this evening is true and all these fears are myths, why did his party leader and the noble Baroness send that letter? Indeed, why were there even concerns about the threat of a US-style market, which his party leader acknowledged on 27 February? They do not sound like myths to me; it sounds like they were very real threats indeed.
What I want to address this evening is the fact that when the package of amendments that were meant to put the Clegg-Williams package into the Bill finally emerged, they fell considerably short of what was promised in the letter. Indeed, we are dealing with some of those tonight. I will focus on Lords amendment 148 in particular, which deals with the private patient income cap. When the Minister spoke a moment ago, I did not find him reassuring at all. When he spoke about foundation trusts in the future he said that they would of course remain the principal providers of NHS services, but I do not find that at all reassuring. The exchange he had with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was very revealing. The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake that the noble Baroness made when she took on Polly Toynbee on the same issue. The right hon. Gentleman, like the noble Baroness, does not seem to understand the effect of the amendments he is agreeing to. He began by asking, “Wasn’t it the case that the 49% figure was now completely ruled out and wasn’t relevant?” No is the answer to that. All that the Minister has offered him is that if the increase is more than 5%, it then has to be passed by a vote. I find it incredible that a Member of his years and standing in this House has just revealed that he does not understand the amendments that have been signed up to in order to deliver the package set out in the Clegg-Williams letter. That is a terrifying state of affairs; I do not know what the Members in his party who voted against that might make of it.
Simon Hughes
I absolutely understand the amendment, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman. Given that 1%, 2% or 3% of most hospitals’ activity is private at the moment, as he well knows, it seems to me that it is a much better guarantee that we have a rule that says that no hospital can increase that by more than 5% of what it is now unless there is a decision made locally. That gives much more security than anything else previously in the Bill, and that is why it seems to me to be a very worthwhile amendment.
Andy Burnham
Let me answer that directly. The Financial Times has analysed the latest data on actual NHS income earned through the treatment of private patients and demonstrated that in the last year not a single hospital trust would have been caught by this so-called safeguarding amendment. It used the example of Great Ormond Street, which increased its income from private patients by 19% from 2009-10 to 2010-11, to £25 million. In percentage points, that increase was less than 1%. Given the small numbers in the cap which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, he is agreeing to trusts being able to increase their income from private patients by multiples of hundreds of percentage points without any reference to their boards of trustees. Frankly, he has not addressed the point that he has failed to understand that the Bill still gives trusts the permission to increase it to 49%. They could go to the trustees and increase it to 49%. He might be reassured by that, but I most certainly am not.
Andy Burnham
No, I do not, is the answer—[Interruption.] Well, what has that proved? We had trusts earning income, but the foundation trust legislation set a cap: it allowed the principle but tightly controlled it for the vast majority of hospitals. That was its purpose. This Bill removes those tight controls. This Bill, supported all the way on that point by Liberal Democrats, now allows hospitals completely to change character over time. In time they can turn to US-style hospitals and devote half their facilities to the treatment of private patients—
Andy Burnham
It is not rubbish. They can earn 49% of their income, according to this Bill, from the treatment of private patients. That is a fact, and why the hon. Lady shouts “rubbish” I have no idea.
Andy Burnham
Non-foundation trusts were managed by the Department, and the Department’s policy, during our time in government, was to have a tight cap—[Interruption]. There was a tight cap on the income that trusts could earn, so the very fact of foundation trusts’ creation gave rise to the question of whether there should be a cap. The Minister is effectively abolishing that cap with his Bill.
Andy Burnham
I have answered the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It was an entirely different situation altogether.
On the suggestion that we are setting our face against reform, we have not said that, and I as Secretary of State initiated a review of the private patient cap, because the issue came up before the election. I was prepared to allow a modest relaxation of the cap if it could be demonstrated to benefit private patients, but I was talking about single percentage points: 1% or 2% becoming 2% or 3%. I was not in any way conceiving the possibility that 49% of a trust’s income might be made from the treatment of private patients—that half their theatre time, beds and car parking spaces could be turned over to the treatment of private patients.
Dr Poulter
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will concede that those hospital trusts with a private patient cap that is set at perhaps 35%, such as the Royal Marsden hospital, do not necessarily do that much private work. The decision is at the hospital’s discretion, so the idea that raising the cap to 49% will mean that hospital trusts will per se undertake 49% private activity has been proven to be incorrect, on the facts as they stand at the moment in hospital trusts, because those trusts, the doctors and boards work for the benefit of their patients.
Andy Burnham
That is the ideological difference between us. The hon. Gentleman says that the decision should be at the hospital’s discretion, but the Bill essentially sets everybody on their own. Hospitals are being told, “You’re on your own. There’s none of the support from the centre any more, no bail-outs, as the White Paper said. That’s it, you’re out there, you’re competing in a market, and you’ve got to stand on your own two feet.” I differ from that opinion because I want systems regulation and a role for the centre in deciding whether a hospital should greatly increase its treatment of private patients.
This is not just a question of each individual hospital thinking about what it is going to do, because hospitals will have pressure on their bottom lines, as a colleague said earlier. They will be operating in a difficult financial context, and it might have a different effect on their individual interests. It might make sense for hospitals, individually, to increase the number of private patients, but it might not make sense for the NHS patients who live in that area, and that is the entire point: the Government are trading systems regulation for the individual decisions of local organisations, because that fits when we move to a competitive market in which every individual organisation is a competing business.
Dr Poulter
I am struggling to follow the coherence of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. On the one hand he says that it was all right for non-foundation trusts, under the previous Government, to increase massively the amount of private work that they did, as long as the Department agreed with it; on the other hand he argues that it is very important to control the amount by which foundation trusts raise the private patient cap. He cannot have it both ways, and his argument is not intellectually coherent. Is this not about doing things for the benefit of patients and leaving it up to local hospitals to decide?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman should make a speech if he wants to make interventions of that length. We had a cap to protect the interests of private patients; he is getting rid of the cap, and he is going to have to explain to patients in his constituency, if waiting lists start getting longer, why that is happening. It is as simple as that. We had systems regulation, he is removing that with the Bill and we are moving to a more unregulated market, which is not what we want to see.
Grahame M. Morris
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your advice in relation to a declaration of interest. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) has made two interventions on the private patient cap and has made a declaration of interest. He is a director of Circle, a private health care company. Is it your ruling that every Member must make such a declaration if they speak during the course of this debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is up to each individual Member to make whichever declaration of interest they wish during a debate, but ultimately it is up then to the Member and the Commissioner if the Member wished to take that further.
Andy Burnham
The amendment gives us no protection at all, and it gives us no protection from the NHS cross-subsidising private care. There is nothing in the Bill which says, “The whole costs of the provision of that care have to be reimbursed to the national health service”, as the Financial Times has again demonstrated, and that is why we object to what is happening. We are going back to the old days of the NHS, whereby patients are told, “You can go private or you can go to the back of the queue and wait longer.” That is the choice which we removed from the NHS during our 13 years in government, and we will not accept any return of it.
Simon Hughes
I do not think that I have any more support or encouragement for the private sector in the NHS than the right hon. Gentleman does. May I therefore get him to accept that what Lords amendment 148 does is to limit in relation to each hospital an increase to—
Simon Hughes
No, to 5% of its current figure—not 5% in total, but a 5% proportion. That is what the amendment says, and that gives Guy’s hospital, St Thomas’s hospital and King’s College hospital and patients the reassurance that I think they need. The right hon. Gentleman should read the amendment.
Andy Burnham
I am not going to debate that now. The right hon. Gentleman is going to have to defend himself on whether he has his facts right. I do not think that he has.
We need to put firmly on the record that there are real flaws in the Liberal Democrats’ proposal. They say that it is a safeguard to state, “The governors will decide and it is better done at a local level,” but the governors are going to be under pressure from the management of the hospital because of the pressure on the hospital’s finances. If they make a decision that is in the interests of that hospital, it does not mean that it is in the interests of everybody and of NHS patients.
Paul Burstow
The model that the right hon. Gentleman describes is one that he was only too happy to go through the Lobby and support during the introduction of foundation trusts in the first place. He has omitted to mention Monitor’s role in overseeing the situation through its powers of intervention to ensure the safeguarding of a comprehensive health service, and to mention the guidance that the Secretary of State will give Monitor in order to do just that.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid that I am not at all reassured by that, or in fact by anything the Minister says. The letter that we have from the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of insulating the NHS from European competition law, but I am still waiting to see the amendment that delivers that. As I understand it, one of the Minister’s noble Friends tabled an amendment and then withdrew it, because they did not have the courage to press it to a vote, and accepted a statement on the record instead. This is different from what the Minister keeps saying that we did in government, because he is envisaging a huge expansion of the role of any qualified provider and the putting out to tender of commissioning support units. He has overseen a situation in which three community services have been compulsorily tendered.
The truth is that the Clegg-Williams letter, with the amendments that followed, does not only fail to deliver but sells out the national health service, as does so much of what the Liberal Democrats have agreed to. Our amendments, particularly amendment (b), would provide a measure of systems regulation in the best interests of the NHS, and that is why we will seek to press amendment (b) to a vote.
Dr Poulter
I rise to speak in support of the Government, and of what the previous Government did for the NHS. When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Health—the same was the case with many of his predecessors—there was a consistent policy whereby the private sector should be used where it could add value to patient care in the NHS. That was done very effectively by the previous Government to bring down waiting times for operations, but it was not effective when it was not done in an integrated way. Very often, it was done without regard to post-discharge planning for patients but, as we heard earlier, the renewed focus on integration should help to deal with those problems.
We have some of the very best hospitals not only in this country but in the world, including the Royal Marsden and Moorfields eye hospital, where a relatively high proportion of activity is carried out by the private sector. No one doubts those hospitals’ commitment to their NHS patients or that they still provide those patients with the very high standards of care of which health care systems in other countries are very envious. We are very proud of what those hospitals do, and the Government would like to give other hospitals the same opportunity and freedom to follow their example. The Government believe that it is absolutely appropriate that we should use the private sector where it can enhance value to NHS patients. That is absolutely consistent with the previous Government’s policies, for which many Labour Members campaigned at the last general election. This Government are also committed to those policies.
Simon Hughes
I am absolutely clear that I was not sent to this place to force through the privatisation of the NHS, to force people from the public sector into the private sector, or to undermine great hospitals such as Guy’s, St Thomas’s and King’s College or the other hospitals in my constituency and my borough. Like colleagues from all parts of the House, I know what a fantastic service the NHS provides, not as a matter of policy but from personal experience. It saved the life of my younger brother and looked after my mother in her last days in the most fantastic way that anybody could wish for. I am clear about the commitment of the NHS.
I am therefore clear that we have to look at what the Bill says and what it will do. I have had an exchange about that with the shadow Secretary of State for Health. This is a really important issue outside this place. Clause 161 sets out the following principle:
“The principal purpose of an NHS foundation trust is the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England.”
That was not thought to be enough, so colleagues in the other place said, “Let’s for the first time ever make it clear that private activity can never be more than a minority activity.” That is why the 49% figure appeared.
However, that is not still enough—[Interruption.] Let me deal with this point. That is why Lords amendment 148 is before us. It states that if any foundation trust hospital in England proposes to increase its private income by 5% or more from its current level, which is usually about 2% or 3% of its income, the governors have to agree to the proposal by a majority. There will not be any great vote by the governors of Guy’s and St Thomas’s, King’s College or any other hospital, with the public participation in the debate that there would be, suddenly to increase their private sector activity. That is not the real world, because that is not what the British public want. There are one or two cases—
Simon Hughes
In a second. There are one or two cases, such as the Royal Marsden, which have historically had a higher percentage of private sector activity. Those hospitals have justified doing so, because they are specialist hospitals that have got money in from outside. However, I do not want us to leave this debate letting the public believe that there will now be the opportunity for all the hospitals in England suddenly to move, without any control, towards undertaking huge amounts of private sector activity.
Simon Hughes
I absolutely understand both those points. I understand that commissioning groups cannot subcontract their decisions, but the point I am making to my hon. Friend and to other Ministers is that we have to ensure that the groups do not end up in the position where, although they retain the decision, they leave lots of the thinking about it to the people they employ to do the work. The decisions have to be made by the health professionals. In reply to the Labour amendment, the Minister rightly said that it is a safeguard that local authorities will have the decision on the local healthwatch. Where a local authority is concerned that it should remain in a particular format, it will be able to do so.
In conclusion, I am clear, as I have said to Labour’s Front-Bench team, to constituents and to my friends on the ministerial team, that our constituents still have a huge amount of concern about this Bill; I am clear that a lot of it has arisen because of misinformation and misrepresentation; and I am clear that this is not a privatisation Bill and not a “carve up the NHS” Bill. However, everyone, including Government Members, will need to continue to be vigilant and to continue to talk to the health professionals. I hope that the Government and the health professionals will start talking again very soon. We will also all need to make sure that we understand their concerns and pass them on. I know what my constituents want at the end of this debate; they do not actually want lots of conversations about structures of the health service.
Andy Burnham
I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said about misrepresentation and I wonder who he had in mind. Did he have in mind the members of his own party who went to Gateshead and asked for the Lords not to support the Third Reading of the Bill, although they did so yesterday? Did he have in mind those people who raised the most serious concerns about this Bill? I am talking about his own party members, who overturned his party’s leadership. I will not sit here and have him suggest that the concerns exist only among those on this Front Bench, because that is not the case; they exist throughout the country, and he needs to acknowledge that.
Simon Hughes
Let me deal with both those points. I acknowledge that absolutely. On past occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has been to our party conference, although I do not think he came to the Gateshead conference. [Interruption.] It appears that one of his colleagues did. There were and are concerns in my party about this. My party wrote the plan for the NHS, which the good Labour post-war Government implemented, so of course we think we are as much the proprietors of the NHS as his party and of course there are concerns. There are many concerns—many colleagues are not happy with the Bill—and I am owning up to that.
I am absolutely clear about that, but do not let the right hon. Gentleman misrepresent what happened at Gateshead. My party is a democratic party. It is more democratic than his, thank God, and much more democratic than the Tory party. Our party voted to commend the Lords for the work they had done, but to suspend judgment on the Bill. My party neither voted to say that the Bill should not go ahead, nor to decide that the Bill should go ahead. That was what the debate, in the end, was about. There was not quite a majority saying, “Stop the Bill”; that was not the view of the conference, although there are many people in our party, as there are in his—this view is also shared by some in the Tory party and elsewhere—who would want the Bill to be stopped.
The Bill is not going to be stopped; it will become law. The Bill contains many good things. My concern now is to reflect what constituents, both health professionals and those who are not health professionals, come to talk to me about. They feel that there is a need to get back to concentrating on the things that really matter, such as making sure the wards are clean; making sure that the staff are of the highest quality; making sure that the waiting times go down; making sure that we can get decent care for the mentally ill; and making sure that our NHS is able to do better on all that it does. That is what the concerns are.
I want to make sure that Ministers understand that once the Bill is on the statute book there should be no cause for rejoicing, because this is not a matter for rejoicing. It is a matter of a challenge for Government to go back in humility to the health professionals and say, “We may not have got it all right—we may have got some of it wrong—but we are willing to listen, to learn and to work with you.” In the end it is collaboration between local authorities, local councillors, local people, Ministers, parliamentarians and those millions of fantastic people who work in the national health service who will make sure that the health service survives. It will survive and prosper in this country as a public health service—thank God—and we must all work together to respond to concerns, alleviate fears and not fan the flames. We must make sure that from now on we work on the basis of facts, not fiction, and that we work with those who have the concern, like we do, that the NHS should survive and prosper.
Health and Social Care Bill
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the e-petition signed by 170,000 people calling on the Government to drop the Health and Social Care Bill; and declines to support the Bill in its current form.
I do so on behalf of the 170,000 people who have signed the e-petition calling on the Government to drop the Health and Social Care Bill.
The petition was initiated by Dr Kailash Chand, a distinguished general practitioner in the north-west of many years’ standing, and I pay tribute to him today. He has united patients who depend on the NHS and professionals who have devoted their lives to it in this simple but sincere call on the Government: “Drop the Bill”. Today, their voice will be heard in this House, as it is entitled to be. We will not let them be silenced, even though attempts were made to stop this debate taking place.
That takes us—
Andy Burnham
No. I have been listening to the strictures from the Chair, and I want to get into my speech so that Back-Bench colleagues have a chance to contribute.
That takes us straight to the heart of the predicament in which we find ourselves. There is huge concern in the country about the Bill, but the Government and Parliament—
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
I will in a moment.
There is huge concern in the country about the Bill, but the Government and Parliament are seen simply not to be listening. I give way to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he might prove us wrong.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but before we move beyond that point will he confirm that Dr Chand is an adviser to the Labour party, which inspired the petition? Further, given that Dr Chand has called on the British Medical Association to take strike action against the Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman share that view, or will he disown him?
Andy Burnham
Dr Chand is not an adviser to the Labour party, and the Secretary of State, in seeking to inject that party political note so early on in today’s debate and to claim that the petition of 170,000 people is a political petition, continues, it suggests to me, to misread the mood of this country on his unnecessary Bill.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
No, I will not.
We have arrived at a dangerous moment, not only for the NHS but for our democracy. To recap, this is a Bill for which nobody voted at the general election and which does not have a mandate, a Bill ruled out by the coalition agreement, and a Bill that has been so heavily amended in another place that in effect the unelected Chamber has written a new legal structure for the national health service that we are being asked to rubber-stamp. Yet despite all that, it could be rammed through this House in just seven days’ time, in defiance of an outstanding legal ruling from the Information Tribunal and in the teeth of overwhelming professional and public opposition.
This is an intolerable situation, and it is no way to treat our country’s most valued institution. Far-ranging changes to the NHS of the kind proposed by the Secretary of State can be made only by public consent and professional consensus, and it is plain for all to see that the Government have achieved neither of those things.
Andy Burnham
No, I will not.
To proceed as planned risks profound damage to the relationships of trust that underpin a successful health service and risks a further erosion of trust in our democratic process that this House can ill afford.
Today there is one final chance for this House to ask the Government to step back from this dangerous course and reflect the feeling that there is in every single constituency in England. In introducing this debate, I have a bigger responsibility than speaking for Labour Members. The call to drop the Bill is not a narrow Labour campaign, as was claimed just now and in Gateshead at the weekend—it is a new coalition for the NHS that has brought together patients, professionals and people of all political views, including, I dare say, some of those in the Secretary of State’s own party. People who have signed the petition will be watching our proceedings closely. They will be hoping against hope that somehow we will put the NHS first, put aside the customary clash of party politics, and find common ground that can help the NHS.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have here a letter to the Prime Minister from Dr Clare Highton and Dr Haren Patel, the chairs of City and Hackney clinical commissioning group, who say that they want
“to add our voice to the call for the Bill to be withdrawn.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines his point about the wide range of people who want it to be dropped?
Andy Burnham
I think that Government Members are misjudging the mood of the country, and particularly of health professionals, who have not given a knee-jerk political response to the Bill but have given it careful consideration since it began as a White Paper and then proceeded on its tortuous path through Parliament. They have come to the conclusion that it is better, even now, to abandon it and work back through the existing legal structures of the NHS rather than proceed with the new legal structure and all the upheaval that that entails.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Yesterday I was at a meeting with people with diabetes who expressed grave concern that they do not know what services would be available if the Bill were to go ahead. Is not that another good reason to take a pause and decide to drop the Bill until all these problems can be resolved?
Andy Burnham
I am aware of the concerns expressed by Diabetes UK and, indeed, by many other organisations representing people with long-term conditions, who have not been given the clarity that they need in order to give their support to these changes. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says “Rubbish”, but I am afraid that those questions have not been answered, and that is not good enough.
Andy Burnham
I will not give way.
As I said, we need to see whether we can find common ground and put the NHS before party politics. That is the test that I set for the debate, and it is the spirit in which I wish to frame it. Today is not just an Opposition day but Merseyside derby day. Usually both occasions put me in a highly partisan mood, yet despite having double reason to be in tribal mode, I am going to take the unusual step of urging Labour Members not to vote for our motion but to consider the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and his Liberal Democrat colleagues. We will listen with interest to what he has to say. The amendment sets out a sensible way forward that we can all unite around. It sends out the simple message that the importance of the NHS to us all and to our constituents should trump any tribal loyalty. It is important to say that, because I fear that sheer gut loyalty, political pride and the need to save face are the only forces driving a deeply defective Bill towards the statute book.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I had the great privilege of working in biomedical research in and around the NHS for 15 years before coming to the House. Is it not the case that the challenges of an ageing population, the explosion of new biomedical treatments, diagnostics and devices, and the aspirations of modern patients demand reform? Did not the Labour party use to be the party of reform? Is not the right hon. Gentleman’s partisan posturing simply an illustration that Labour is no longer fit for Government?
Andy Burnham
Those factors demand service reform. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he stood at the election for a moratorium on such reform, which was a dishonest pledge that would have prevented the NHS from making the changes that it needs.
The NHS model that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seek to break with the Bill is judged to be the most efficient health care service in the world. The Secretary of State says today that that model is simply unsustainable in this century, with the ageing society and all the other pressures on it. I put it to the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State that that model is not the problem but the solution to the challenges of an ageing society, because it is proven to be the most fair and cost-effective way of delivering health care to the whole population.
We need to be honest with ourselves today. I mentioned the fact that it is just political pride and gut loyalty that are driving the Bill towards the statute book. Those motivations, however understandable and human they are and however familiar to politicians of every stripe, do not justify inflicting a sub-optimal legislative structure on our most cherished public service and making the already difficult job of health professionals even harder as they struggle to make sense of Parliament’s intentions.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is ideology, not evidence-based policy, that is driving ever greater competition in health care markets? Does he agree that the evidence suggests that that is the way to undermine our NHS, not to improve quality and equity?
Andy Burnham
I agree with the hon. Lady. It is that ideology that the NHS and health professionals are rejecting. They want to work in an essentially collaborative health service. They do not accept the vision that pits hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor.
Barely anybody has a good word to say about this busted flush of a Bill, which has lurched from one disaster to another. The unprecedented pause did not address the real concerns, but simply added bureaucracy and complexity. The 1,000-plus amendments are not a sign of improvement, but of confusion, complexity and contradiction. They have left a mess of a Bill that even the Health Secretary cannot recognise as his own. If that was not bad enough, an unfolding communications disaster has alienated the very people the Government are depending on to implement their Bill. A Downing street summit was called to discuss the implementation of a reform that is about clinical leadership, but doctors’ and nurses’ leaders were shut out of Downing street. It was hard to see how the situation could get any worse, but it just has.
First, on Friday, the Information Tribunal ruled against the Government and in favour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which he has pursued his principled case. The tribunal ruled against the publication of the strategic risk register, but in favour of the publication of the transition risk register, vindicating our position and dismissing the Prime Minister’s claims against my actions as Health Secretary.
Let us be clear about what that ruling represents. It is an incredible state of affairs for any Government to suffer such a serious legal reversal at this stage of a protracted parliamentary process. It is an indictment of the judgment, or lack of it, of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and others in the Department, in their handling of the Bill. Where is the Minister’s good grace in defeat? It is simple: my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne won and the Government lost. What are they waiting for? They must publish the risk register today and give Parliament the courtesy of knowing all the relevant information on Ministers’ plans before they ask us to approve them. Instead, what do we get? Silence and playing for time. They are hoping to string it out until after 20 March. That is simply not good enough.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is, as ever, making the case for the NHS, not for the privatisation that the Tories and their Lib Dem friends are pursuing. We are talking about the future of the NHS, so let me quote Victoria Roberts, a student nurse from Merseyside, who starts her training in two weeks. She says:
“I am a student nurse due to start my training in 2 weeks. This is not the NHS I want to serve or work in, but rather will help only those who can pay the most.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree with that assessment of where the Tories are taking the NHS?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions. A lot of people want to speak and we have got to get on with it.
Andy Burnham
I wish the Government would listen to voices such as the student nurse that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) quoted—people who want to dedicate their lives to the NHS. Frankly, their views are brushed aside by an arrogant Government.
It gets worse as the Bill enters a new crisis, with one of the coalition parties formally withdrawing permission from its peers to support the Bill. It is not at all clear what happens now—whether Lib Dem peers will defy the wishes of their party or their leader. Given the developments of the last few days, it is simply inconceivable that the Government can continue on their current course and present the discredited Bill here in seven days. The only responsible thing to do is listen to what Lib Dem Members are saying and support what the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives seeks to do. I will deal with that shortly.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Just so that the right hon. Gentleman is clear, the motion that the Liberal Democrats passed on Sunday did not tell the Lords that they should or should not support the Bill. It simply reserved our party members’ judgment until we see the work that the Lords are continuing to do. That is our position. I think that that is sensible and fair for the NHS and our party.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid that I cannot read all the intricate smoke signals of a Lib Dem conference, but to my simple mind, removing permission from the motion for peers to endorse the Bill is a pretty clear signal that that permission has been withheld.
Before I deal with the amendment that the hon. Member for St Ives has tabled, I want to tackle directly the charge of scaremongering that has been levelled at Labour Members, and draw the House’s attention to evidence already emerging that supports our central concerns about the effect of the reorganisation. We have consistently said that it is the wrong time to reorganise the NHS—indeed, it is the worst time imaginable. The Government are asking the NHS to do too much. It is facing its toughest ever financial challenge. Combining that with the biggest ever reorganisation was a catastrophic misjudgment. The Government dismantled the existing structures of the NHS before the new ones were in place, leading to a loss of grip and focus at local level just when that was most needed.
We have now had two lost years in the NHS. When the system should have been getting to grips with the financial challenge, it has been distracted and destabilised by reorganisation. Information is now emerging that bears that out. The Nicholson challenge is a huge task for the NHS, but after only six months, we hear that it is already falling behind. New information provided from the Department to the Health Service Journal in response to a freedom of information request reveals how two out of three—68%—non-foundation trust acute trusts missed their savings targets for the first six months of the Nicholson challenge. At least five have made less than 20% of their planned savings for the year 2011-12. Overall, at the half-year point, the non-FT acute sector had a net deficit of £135 million. That is a real warning sign, which suggests that the Government are storing up huge problems for the future.
That is not conjecture. There is evidence that a destabilised NHS is losing its grip on finances and operational standards. For the tenth week in a row, the NHS last week missed the Secretary of State’s lowered standard for accident and emergency, with fewer than 95% of people seen within four hours. That is the main barometer of pressure on NHS hospitals. The figures clearly tell us that hospitals are not coping with the pressure that they are under, and that job losses and staff shortages are having a real impact.
Andy Burnham
I will not.
Rather than just reel off statistics about elective waiting times, I ask the Secretary of State today to address A and E performance. Why does he think the NHS is missing his relaxed target and what steps is he taking to address that?
Another of our central concerns—
Andy Burnham
Just one second. I have said that I want to give hon. Members a chance to comment in the debate, and that is what I am going to do.
Andy Burnham
No.
The Opposition have said that the plans will bring huge variation and a postcode lottery writ large, which is what we are beginning to see, with random rationing decisions across the system. Minor operations are being restricted, generic drugs are being prescribed, and procedures, for instance to remove varicose veins, are being withdrawn from patients.
More worryingly, we have seen the emergence of a new trend: trusts are restricting access to treatment and surgery based on body mass index levels or lifestyle factors such as smoking. Those have been dressed up as initiatives to improve public health, but many people see them as crude attempts to save money. It seems to me that that is a straightforward breach of the NHS constitution, and indeed of its founding values. Treatment should be according to need, not according to judgmental decisions by unaccountable health professionals. I put it to the House that that is a dangerous departure. Treatment according to need must mean what it says. There is no sign of Ministers intervening to say that that is unacceptable and that they will reverse those decisions. That is a worrying glimpse of the future, in which the NHS becomes a huge postcode lottery and people have limited chance to challenge decisions, and it takes us to one of people’s central worries about the Bill: that there is no longer a duty on local commissioners to provide comprehensive health services.
There is other evidence around the system of the concerns that the Opposition have raised. There is evidence of fragmentation, not integration, as clinical commissioning groups are ordered to run an “any qualified provider” tendering process on three community services; of damage to the doctor-patient relationship; and of hospitals, such as St Helier, which is in the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), being destabilised by the effects of the emerging market, as clinical commissioning groups begin to withdraw services.
Those are not invented risks or scaremongering; they are there in black and white in local and regional risks registers, which Opposition Members have highlighted. We are now seeing those risks begin to materialise on the ground, which is why the difficult judgment that so many royal colleges have reached is that, even now, as difficult as it is, it is safer for the NHS to work back through the existing legal structures of the system than to proceed with the introduction of a new one.
I want to assure the House that “Drop the Bill” is not pure oppositional opportunism. I have always balanced the “Drop the Bill” call with the words, “And we will work with the Government to introduce GP-led commissioning.” I have never had any objection to doctors being more able to shape services, nor to more control and choice for patients, but the simple truth is that the Government did not need a new Bill to introduce those things. Indeed, the very fact that they have arrogantly already introduced those changes in advance of the Bill makes the argument that the Bill is simply unnecessary.
The Bill is a huge exercise in futility, but the reason we have one is that the Government want to go further on a misguided mission to rewrite the entire legal structure of the NHS to facilitate more competition and a market-based system. That, more than anything, is worrying people and why they are withholding support. That is the Government’s problem. They were not open and honest about those plans at the beginning, and have openly extolled the competition argument only in more recent weeks. That is why people are worried by the hidden agenda they see behind the Bill.
The amendment from the hon. Member for St Ives offers a way forward that can bring politicians and professionals back together, but, in urging the Opposition to support it, I wish to make something very clear: in supporting the amendment, the Opposition are offering no endorsement of the health policies in the coalition agreement. We are simply saying that if the Government were to stick to the precise terms of the coalition agreement, and specifically to the clear pledge of no top-down reorganisation, that would be a better position for the NHS and would represent real progress.
The talks could take as a starting point the stability plan proposed by the Faculty of Public Health. GP-led commissioning could be delivered by the clinical commissioning groups that the Secretary of State has created. Furthermore, to build confidence among clinicians, I offer to agree with him some principles by which important service change in the NHS could be introduced without every hospital being used as a political football at a local level. That is because the NHS needs service change, not structural reform. If we continue to play politics with hospital changes, we will do the NHS the ultimate disservice of condemning it to an outdated service model.
In conclusion, I am in politics to protect the things I care about, and the NHS comes top of that list. This is not about politics, as was claimed at the weekend. To be honest, it suits our narrow political objectives for the Government simply to plough on. The great irony is that dropping the Bill would be the right political decision for both coalition partners. Nevertheless, we desperately want them to do that, because if they do not, the damage to the NHS will be profound and possibly irreparable.
We have called this debate both to reflect the views of the e-petitioners and to try to find a way forward around which people can coalesce. We are ready to play a constructive part in that process. But I need to be clear with the Secretary of State: it would be a constitutional outrage were he to bring his discredited Bill back to this House in seven days. Put simply, he does not have the permission of the people of this country to proceed with his plans for the NHS. He is wrong to say that the NHS model we have known for 63 years is unsustainable in the face of the challenges of this century.
The NHS is the solution to those challenges, not the problem, having been judged the most efficient and fair system in the world. Those are truly great strengths, and my plea to the Secretary of State is to build on them, not throw them away. However, if he will not listen, the House can still intervene. Time is running out for the NHS. Tonight we have a final chance to put the NHS first and party politics second. The country wants us to do that. Let us rise to the occasion. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Lansley
Let us try this one. For the first time the Bill introduces in clause 3 a duty that embeds the need to act to reduce inequalities firmly within the health system. After 13 years of widening health inequalities under Labour, surely he cannot be against that—or is he? No. Well, what about clinically led commissioning, with doctors and nurses who are responsible for our care given the leadership role in designing services? We heard earlier about one CCG, but 75 leaders of clinical commissioning groups wrote to The Times a fortnight ago. Let me quote them, because it is instructive of what is happening. They said:
“Since the…Bill was announced, we have personally seen more collaboration, enthusiasm and accepted responsibility from our GP colleagues, engaged patients and other NHS leaders than through previous ‘NHS re-organisations’”.
They continued:
“Putting clinicians in control of commissioning has allowed us to concentrate on outcomes through improving quality, innovation and prevention”—
precisely the things that the NHS needs for the future.
Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Oh, yes, we can do GP commissioning”, but let us recall that in 2005, practice-based commissioning was in the Labour manifesto, and that in 2006, he said he was in favour of it. He said that he was
“introducing practice-based commissioning. That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area”—[Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 861.]
Mr Lansley
I will give way in moment. The right hon. Gentleman said he was in favour of practice-based commissioning. In 2010, he was the Secretary of State and was in charge of the manifesto, yet practice-based commissioning disappeared out of the Labour manifesto —it was not there at all. After the election, he pops up and says, “Oh, we are in favour of it again”. The truth is that practice-based commissioning was always the right idea: the Labour Government did not do it; the primary care trusts suppressed it. The Bill makes it possible for clinical commissioning groups to take responsibility and for doctors and nurses to design and deliver better services. Because of this Bill, it will happen—and it will not be suppressed by a top-down bureaucracy.
Andy Burnham
I made the Secretary of State an offer in my opening remarks. I said I would work with him to introduce his vision of clinically led commissioning, but he seems strangely silent about that and is pursing a very partisan tone. Will he confirm that he could introduce GP-led commissioning without any need for legislation—and without all the upheaval that is coming with his reorganisation?
Mr Lansley
The short answer to that is no. If one wishes to arrive at a place where the clinical commissioning groups have responsibility for budgets and proper accountability—including democratic accountability for what they do—legislation is required to get there. That is why we are putting legislation in place to make it happen.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her initiative in bringing doctors, dentists and nurses together to have that conversation. I really appreciated it, and I thought that it illustrated exactly what I have found—that, although not everybody in the room agreed with the Bill—[Laughter]—many did. Contrary to what I see on the Labour Benches, they all wanted to design better services for patients. They cared about patients and engaged in a proper debate about how to achieve that.
I am still trying to find out what it is in the Bill that the right hon. Member for Leigh is against. Is it the fact that the Bill strengthens the NHS constitution? He should be proud of that; he introduced it. For the first time, however, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to have regard to it and the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups to promote it. He is not against that, I presume.
What about the fact that, for the first time, the NHS Commissioning Board and commissioners will have a duty to promote integration throughout health and social care? Is the right hon. Gentleman against integrated care? I do not know. Let me try another question. What about the prohibition in clauses 146, 22 and 61 of discrimination in favour of private providers, which is in legislation for the first time? The right hon. Gentleman may be against that, because when his party was in office, that is what the Government did. They discriminated in favour of private sector providers, and we ended up with £250 million being spent on operations that never took place and the NHS being paid more for operations when it was not even allowed to bid for the work.
What about the creation of a strong statutory voice for patients through HealthWatch? The Labour Government destroyed the community health councils, they destroyed patient forums, and they left local involvement networks neutered. When they were in office, they were pretty dismissive of a strong patient voice. Well, we on the Government Benches are not, and the Bill will establish that patient voice. Is the right hon. Gentleman against all trusts becoming foundation trusts? The Bill will make that happen, and will support it—oh, no, I forgot: according to the Labour party manifesto, Labour wanted all trusts to become foundation trusts.
Let us keep moving through the Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman against directly engaging local government in the commissioning of health services, integrating health and social care, and leading population health—public health—improvement plans? I ask the question not least because Labour local authorities throughout England are in favour of that. They want to improve the health of the people whom they represent. Is the right hon. Gentleman against local democratic accountability? The list could go on. Is he against the provision of a regulator—Monitor—whose duty is to protect the interests of patients by promoting quality, stopping anti-competitive practices that could harm patients, supporting the integration of services, and securing the continuity of services? Is he against that? It is in the coalition agreement, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is against it or not, because he does not say.
Is the right hon. Gentleman against statutory backing for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to support its work on quality? I do not know; we have not heard. Is he against developing the tariff so that it pays for quality and outcomes, not for activity? He knows that that has to happen, and he knows that it has been the right thing to do for the best part of a decade, but we have no idea whether he is against it now.
I cannot discover what the right hon. Gentleman is actually against. He sits there and says that he is against the Bill, but he is not against anything that is in the Bill. He is against the Bill because he has literally made up what he claims it says. He says that it is about privatisation—
Mr Lansley
All right, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman one more time. Come on, then: let us find out what he is against.
Andy Burnham
I will tell the Secretary of State what I am against. I am against the rewriting of the entire legal structure of the national health service to plant market forces at the centre of the system, and to pit doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. That is what I am against, it is what 170,000 people signed a petition against, and it is what the overwhelming consensus of health professionals is against. Would the Secretary of State not do well to listen to them for once?
Mr Lansley
So now we know, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is sheer invention. There is nothing in the Bill that creates a free-for-all. There is nothing in it that creates a market of that kind. The Bill means competition for quality, not price. It gives patients choice—and the Labour party’s manifesto was in favour of giving patients choice. Competition is not being introduced to the NHS by the Bill; it is being channelled in the interests of patients to support quality throughout the NHS.
The Opposition talk about privatisation. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), there is nothing in the Bill that allows any privatisation of NHS services. There is nothing in it that promotes such a privatisation.
The left-leaning papers talk about privatisation at Hinchingbrooke hospital because Circle is an independent mutual organisation. That is interesting, because the process for the franchising out of the management of Hinchingbrooke was started by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State. So there we are: the only secret Tory plan that Labour can find turns out to be a Labour plan.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. When Labour Members talk about the private sector in the NHS, they leave out of account the fact that not only did they give the private sector a sweetheart deal to get it into the independent sector treatment centres, but they have left us with 102 hospitals that were built by the private sector and £67 billion of debt to the NHS. They wandered around the country saying, “Look how we’re spending all your money to build all these new hospitals,” but they did not spend the money to build the new hospitals. They have left the NHS to have to deal with it now, which is why I am having to support hospitals that have unsustainable private finance initiative debt that the right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues did not deal with.
What do we have? We have policies that the right hon. Gentleman disowns, and we have nothing to replace them with. We have political opportunism, distortions dressed up as arguments, and a shameful campaign to scare people about a Bill that, in reality, is about strengthening the NHS for the benefit of patients.
Of course, if we want to see what Labour would do, we only have to look at the situation in Wales. I have to hand a Wales Audit Office bar chart; I shall hold it up so Opposition Members can see it. One bar shows rising real-terms expenditure on the NHS in England, and the blue bar shows rising real-terms expenditure on the NHS in Scotland, while the green bar shows the rate for Northern Ireland, where the rise is lower. Another bar, however, shows a very large real-terms cut in NHS spending in Labour-run Wales. Labour in Wales did not just agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be “irresponsible” to increase NHS spending; Labour in Wales went further, and cut spending.
In order to see the result of that, we must look at performance. In England, 91% of patients are seen and treated within 18 weeks, compared with just 68% in Wales. In England, only 1.4% of patients waited over six weeks for diagnostic tests; in Wales, 29% waited over six weeks. In Wales, Labour says it wants to insulate the NHS against reform. It ought to adopt it, however, because all that is happening in Wales is that the Labour party is, once again, putting politics before patients.
It is patients who should be at the heart of the NHS —patients and those who care for them. This Bill is simply the support to a far more important set of changes, which make shared decision-making with patients the norm across the NHS, which bring clinical leadership to the forefront of the design and delivery of health and care services, which make local government central to planning for health and care, which strengthen the patient voice, and under which the NHS is open about the results we achieve and how to improve those results so we genuinely match the best in the world. We will continue to work with the royal colleges, and others with an interest in the future of the NHS, to implement our plans, so that we provide the best possible care for patients. The right hon. Gentleman’s motion and speech gave no credit to the NHS for what it is achieving, but I will.
We are proud of the services we deliver for patients: the lowest ever number of patients waiting over six months for treatment—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like to listen to this, but it is the reality. Average time spent waiting for treatment is lower than at the last election. The number of patients waiting over a year for treatment has more than halved since the election. MRSA and C. difficile are at their lowest ever levels. There are more diagnostic tests—up by 300,000 over a year. There is more planned care, and there are fewer unplanned emergency admissions to hospital. Some 11,800 patients have benefited from the cancer drugs fund, and 990,000 more people have had access to NHS dentistry, while mixed-sex accommodation is down by 95%.
Mr Lansley
No, because I am going to tell the right hon. Gentleman what he did not admit. Reform is going ahead. We are delivering efficiencies across the NHS.
Mr Lansley
All right, I will give way, but the right hon. Gentleman might like to explain why in the year before the election the administration costs of the NHS rose by 23% and he added more than £320 million to the administration costs of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, but in the year since, we have cut those costs. Absolutely contrary to what he said—because he was completely wrong—we are on track to deliver the Nicholson challenge. We delivered £2.5 billion in savings in the first six months of this year, having delivered £4.3 billion in savings during the course of the last financial year. Come on: explain that one.
Andy Burnham
I should just point out that the Secretary of State is trading on the successful legacy he inherited from Labour: the lowest ever waiting lists; the highest ever patient satisfaction. Let me leave that to one side, however. We on the Opposition Benches have noticed that he has not once mentioned his tribunal defeat on the NHS risk register, and all the achievements he just reeled off are at risk, are they not, because of this misguided reorganisation? I ask him to answer this point today: will he now comply with the ruling of the Information Tribunal, publish this risk register today, and let the public know the full truth about what he is doing to their national health service?
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) and it was notable that his hon. and right hon. Friends were listening to his words, rapt, possibly reflecting on what they had missed out on. The kernel of his argument for this side of the House appeared to be the offering of advice to us about where our party advantage lay. He will forgive me if I say that I think we should look elsewhere for advice about where our party advantage lies.
The right hon. Gentleman was raising a voice for Blairite reform of the NHS, and that is a theme to which I want to return. Some opponents of the Bill can claim the virtue of consistency. Some opponents of the Bill can claim that they always opposed the development of structures in the health services that encouraged flexibility and encouraged a focus on the patient voice and on general practitioners and the wider clinical community as an effective voice for patients in the health service.
Some can claim that they have always opposed having a health service open to private and independent sector provision alongside the national health service provision—that they have always preferred a centrally planned, state-provided service. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who is not in his place, can claim the virtue of consistency on that argument, but the shadow Health Secretary cannot claim that consistency because he, like the right hon. Member for South Shields, was once a Blairite. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown with the quotations he gave from the shadow Health Secretary when he was at the Department, the shadow Health Secretary used to be an advocate of the policies that underlie this Bill. The Bill will deliver effective practice-based commissioning —a policy that the shadow Secretary of State used to espouse.
Andy Burnham
If this Bill simply continues our policy, why does it rewrite the entire legal structure of the national health service over 500 pages?
Mr Dorrell
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is room for more than one view about the extent to which there is a need to rewrite the full statutory basis of the Bill, but that is not the issue now. The question is how, if we went down his route, had a summit and talked for another 12 months about what the institutional structure of the health service should be, that would serve the policy objective that he seeks to espouse, of greater clinical engagement in commissioning. How would it serve the policy objective of which he says he is in favour, of engaging local authorities and the wider political community in decisions that shape the future of the health service?
One issue that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention in his speech is the shift of public health out of the relatively narrow interpretation that is implicit when it is located in the national health service. Instead, public health can properly be understood as being part of the wider range of local government. Those changes do not justify some of the more ambitious rhetoric being used in support of the Bill but they certainly do not come close to justifying the rhetoric being used against it. If half the things being said about the Bill by Opposition Members were true, I and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, would not support it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “Bill;” to end and add:
“declines to support the Bill in its current form; and calls for an urgent summit of the Royal Colleges, professional bodies, patients’ organisations and the Government to plan health reforms based on the Coalition Agreement.”
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), a fellow member of the Health Committee, who talks with great knowledge and, from the manner in which she handles herself in the Committee, is clearly very committed. The primary concern of us all in this debate is the future of the NHS; I do not question anyone’s motives as far as that is concerned. That is why I was particularly pleased when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) opened the debate by reassuring us that we would have a non-tribal, non-partisan debate, and that is also why I feel rather saddened that the debate so quickly degenerated once again into tribalism, which I am sorry to say will seriously undermine our chances of coming forward with a rational solution to the intractable problem of what to do with the Bill.
Although the positions have become further entrenched by the debate, I am concerned about its outcome, because ultimately we will not defeat the Bill. This is not Second Reading, when Members could independently make up their mind on the issue outside the tribal mix. We should debate the matter in a manner that might assist the Government to reflect on where we are. I hope that ultimately they will withdraw the Bill, which is what many of us want them to do. As far as I can see, the Bill cannot be defeated by either House, so the power, and the fate of the Bill with it, lies pretty much entirely in the hands of the Government.
Although I understand that the Secretary of State is obliged to advance the arguments in the way he did today, I am concerned. Therefore, if we are to advance as I propose by withdrawing the Bill and, as set out in the amendment, calling a summit of those who want to take forward a lot of what I think is good in the Bill and in the coalition agreement, I am not sure how that could be achieved on the basis of what we have heard so far. Clare Gerada, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, this morning talked about withdrawing the Bill in order to stabilise the NHS and ensure that we go forward without basing the future of the NHS on ideology, but we of course need to do that while ensuring that everyone is working together.
I agree with the Secretary of State’s approach to the issue, which is that no change is not an option and that change and reform are of course required in the NHS, but I think that it is better that we take this forward on a more consensual basis than the Government have achieved so far.
I already have only a little time left, so let me say something about the Secretary of State himself, because his commitment to the NHS has been questioned in today’s debate. Let me make it clear to my right hon. Friend—in this regard—that, as I said on Second Reading, I believe that he approaches the issue with the very best of intentions, and I would never question the sincerity of his commitment to the NHS over many years, which I highly respect, along with his knowledge of the subject; our disagreement is on the judgment of the legislation. I do not know whether that metaphorical embrace will damage his reputation among his Conservative colleagues, but I hope that it will not.
There are many failings in the current legislation.
Andy Burnham
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but may I push him a little? He says that the Bill cannot be defeated, because of parliamentary arithmetic, but what is his take on the points that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made? Is it not the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that the Lib Dem conference withdrew its permission for his peers to vote for the Bill? Does that not therefore take permission away from Liberal Democrat MPs to support it?
Andrew George
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the conference was advisory on the issue. The motion before it actually congratulated our noble Friends in the House of Lords on having achieved significant amendments to the Bill. They have made the Bill less bad but not good enough to make it acceptable to myself—or indeed to many of my colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Liberal Democrat Ministers and others cannot vote against the Government, so it is not very helpful of him to try to tease out such a situation. The pressure on those who are not so constrained has, however, been lifted.
Chris Skidmore
No, I will not. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) did not give way to me, I am afraid, so I am not feeling too charitable.
Despite the coalition Government’s added investment of £12.5 billion over the course of this Parliament, demand will only rise further, with 1.6 million people turning 65 in the course of this Parliament and many living into their 80s and beyond. The number of 85-year-olds will double by 2030. The NHS is facing a perfect storm—an ageing population combined with a rise in chronic conditions, including an increase in diabetes, which will take up as much as 25% of the health budget. That is why we are reforming the NHS. Just as this Government are committed to dealing with the deficit so that future generations will not be burdened with debt racked up yesterday, we must be committed to reforming the NHS so that future generations can enjoy an NHS that is free at the point of delivery regardless of the ability to pay. I am sure that that is what everyone in this House is committed to.
By placing GPs rather than management in control of patient treatment, we will not only drive up standards of care, allowing patients access to more treatments under any the qualified provider scheme, but ensure that recurrent cost savings are made to be reinvested in the NHS to cope with the rising demand. Above all, this is an evolutionary measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) touched on the Blairite doctrine. It was a pleasure that we had Professor Julian Le Grand come to the Health Committee, where he said that if Tony Blair were still Prime Minister and he were advising him, he would have urged him to undertake this measure. It is great to see the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) in his seat. It would have been fascinating to see what would have happened if he had become leader of the Labour party. I am sure that we would not have seen the rank tribalism that we have seen from those on his Benches today.
Chris Skidmore
I am talking about the right hon. Member for South Shields, not the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
Professor Julian Le Grand stated on 28 February:
“With respect to the NHS bill, it is important that even those who generally prefer to rely upon their intuitions should avoid muddying the waters by accusing the bill of doing things that it does not, like privatising the NHS; and that all those involved should acknowledge the peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that its provisions with respect to public competition…are likely to improve patient care.”
More hours have been given to debating this Bill than any other during this Session. Despite Labour’s message, which seems to be opposition for opposition’s sake, we are gradually learning what its policy will be for the next general election. It is interesting that at a rally in Manchester last week, the right hon. Member for Leigh stated, in front of his union faithful,
“And I will make you a promise today—if I am the health secretary after the next general election I will repeal this bill.”
According to the Opposition, this is the greatest reorganisation in history. Yet the Bill will save £4.5 billion straight away and then £1.5 billion recurrently, year on year, thereafter.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who observed in her vigorous and punchy speech that there was an element of déjà vu in the debate.
I was delighted to listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). As I listened to it, and to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), I reflected on how odd changes in political fortunes are. Those two were the über-Blair reformers, but it was clear from their speeches—both thoughtful in their different ways—that they had turned away from their reforming zeal. I can only put that down to “what a difference a leadership election makes”.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) on another good and compelling contribution. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Witham, as well as the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). It seems that in his part of the world they call a spade a spade.
I must also mention the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), which was at times fanciful, that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), which was passionate but, I fear, misguided, and that of the hon. Member for Stallybridge—[Hon. Members: “Stalybridge!”] I mean the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I am afraid that I am from the south. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my question about the political allegiance of Dr Chand, whom he prayed in aid, given that Dr Chand has had aspirations to become a Labour candidate. Indeed, I think he even had aspirations to fight the seat that the hon. Gentleman fought, so it was very generous of the hon. Gentleman to mention him.
Let me make clear to the House that no party has a monopoly on caring for the NHS. We all care for the NHS passionately, and I find it distressing when Opposition Members seek to misrepresent the position by accusing us of trying to privatise it. Let me tell them that this party, my party—this Government, the coalition Government—will never privatise the NHS, and let me tell my hon. Friends to reinforce that message. Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State a duty to provide a comprehensive health service, and subsection (3) gives a commitment—just as Nye Bevan did in his original Act—that it will be free at the point of use.
Let me tell Opposition Members that what they are saying is scaremongering, that it is unfair, and that it is a gross distortion of the facts. Let me also tell them that shroud-waving does not do them any credit. Pulling out examples that have no basis in proof and are simply intended to misguide and mislead the public is a disgrace—
Mr Burns
No, because I have no time. I have only five minutes.
The right hon. Gentleman was seductive in his speech. He came across as trying to be eminently reasonable by saying that he did not want this to be a party political football. I must say to him, however, that it is he and his friends who have turned the NHS into a party political football, and I must say to them that the NHS is too precious to be turned into a party political football simply for the purpose of trying to gain votes.
Our reforms will help to prepare the NHS for the future, making it more balanced and better suited to the demands of the 21st century so that it has a long and healthy life based on its founding principles. First, our reforms will give patients more choice, enabling them to choose where to go, see who they want to see, and influence the kind of services that they want in their communities. Secondly, they will give doctors more freedom to commission care for their patients, so that they can shape the NHS around the needs of their local communities. Thirdly, they will reduce bureaucracy so that money—£4.5 billion of it between now and 2015—can be saved and reinvested in front-line services. Those are the basic premises and that is the basic ethos of the Bill.
Not once during the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, and not once during the speeches of any of his right hon. and hon. Friends, did we hear a single answer to the question of what they would do. I do not know how many Members saw the right hon. Gentleman being interviewed on “Newsnight” by Jeremy Paxman two weeks ago. Some of us live in fear of that experience, while some of us come to enjoy it. Five times during that brief one-to-one interview, Mr Paxman asked the right hon. Gentleman “What would you do?” and answer came there none. That was because the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to criticise and try to scare people in order to win votes, but he is not prepared to confront, in a realistic and meaningful way, the challenges facing the NHS and the way in which it must move forward.
What we need is less carping, less criticism, and more constructive engagement. When the right hon. Gentleman says in his flowery way that he is prepared to engage in all-party discussions there is a hollowness in his claim, because he has no policies to discuss, and can identify no positive way in which to resolve the problems of the NHS and enable it to evolve to meet the pressures to which it is subject.
This Bill, which has been discussed at length in this House and in another place, is the Bill that will move the NHS forward and enable it to meet the challenges of an ageing population and an escalating drugs spend. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion and to reject the Liberal Democrats’ amendment if it is pressed to a vote, because neither is in the interests of the health service or those of the country.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Adult Social Care
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on bringing this important debate to the House. They make an impressive and persuasive double act for this most important of causes, and are right to challenge both Front-Bench teams as this is without doubt the biggest unresolved public policy challenge facing the country. So far, between us, Parliament has failed to face up to it, and as others have said the result is a developing care crisis in England.
We must all bear our share of the responsibility for allowing that to happen, but the best response is to resolve to find lasting solutions. This century of the ageing society demands it, and the earlier we do it, the better. If we do not, to Beveridge’s five giants of the last century we might add a sixth for the 21st century: fear of old age. We cannot let that happen, and people are looking to us all to put point scoring aside and to work constructively to find a solution. In that spirit, I welcome much of what the Minister said.
I commit the Opposition to doing the same, and as a sign of our intent, the Leader of the Opposition has appointed a member of the shadow Cabinet with specific responsibility for these matters. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). The House might have noticed that she is not here today. I send her apologies. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is absolutely right. She has a good excuse: she is in Leicester with Her Majesty the Queen at the commencement of the diamond jubilee celebrations; otherwise of course she would have been here. I hope that I am an acceptable substitute.
Andy Burnham
Thank you.
I wish to demonstrate today Labour’s commitment to this issue. The House might remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, that I made reforming social care my top priority as Health Secretary, and I did that for a very personal reason: I have never forgotten my grandmother’s dispiriting journey through England’s care system and the battles that my mum fought to preserve her dignity. The day I visited her in a nursing home near where I lived to find that her engagement ring had been wrenched off her finger and stolen was the day that I knew something was seriously amiss with how we looked after our older people.
We all have our own personal experiences, and we all know that we have to do much better. Looking after other people’s relatives, particularly the most vulnerable in our society, should be one of the most highly valued and respected callings there is, but sadly the reverse is the case. England’s care provision is too often low status and low wage, with about 70% of the work force having no qualifications and many earning at or around the national minimum wage.
With every year that passes and every year that we do not achieve a lasting and better solution to the funding of adult social care, the cruel unfairness in the system gets worse and the quality of service diminishes even further. People are paying higher charges, and the most vulnerable, as the Minister said, are losing everything. Families are being wiped out physically, emotionally and financially by the situation, carers are under intolerable pressure and councils are struggling to cope with the demographic pressures.
But there is hope. I did not think that the White Paper and cross-party talks that I led before the election achieved as much as they might, but perhaps I was wrong, because they might have prompted the Government to establish the Dilnot commission, on which we congratulate them. We also congratulate Andrew Dilnot and his commission on the intelligent way they addressed their brief and delivered a solution that politicians on all sides can work with. It provides a basis for progress, and we should take it.
Since then, we have also had the Health Select Committee’s excellent report on social care, which made a persuasive case for integration. At present, the social care debate is happening in isolation from the debate about NHS reform, which is unhelpful. We are looking at a Bill called the Health and Social Care Bill, but there is not much about social care in it. Indeed, it is slightly odd that a Bill of this name is going through Parliament, yet a social care White Paper is not due until May, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said. It is essential that we start viewing reform of social care and the NHS as two sides of the same challenge—how to provide integrated, people-centred and preventive care in the century of the ageing society.
The Committee’s recommendation of a single commissioner for older people was an important one, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth endorse it. I do, too, not least because it was precisely what I would have done had I returned to the Department of Health as Health Secretary had we secured a different result at the general election. However, I am worried that this vision, which we share, is made more difficult by the Health and Social Care Bill and the new landscape that is developing.
Those are the issues that the Government need to address in the White Paper. We are grateful for the opportunity that the Minister and the Secretary of State have extended to us to take part in cross-party talks and to influence that debate, as well as the crucial issue of how to fund the Dilnot proposals. Speaking for the Opposition, I can assure the House that we will play a constructive and responsible role in those talks. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to place three caveats on the table. First, we need to make it clear to people that although the Dilnot package is an important step forward, it is only that. It is not the whole answer to the challenges that the country faces. Its introduction would make the system fairer than it is today and would deal with the catastrophic costs of care that the most vulnerable people face. However, people would still be liable for high charges, with the vulnerable paying the most.
Secondly, there has to be a recognition from all parties in the House that progress will come only with difficult decisions and nettles being grasped. We need to have a mature discussion with the public about those difficult options, rather than using them for point-scoring purposes. What stands in the way of progress is not the complexity of the issues—they are not over-complex—but the political will to advance a difficult argument. That is what has prevented us from making more progress than we should have. To push things along and give our talks some impetus, it would help if the Government committed to introduce legislation in this Parliament to implement whatever has been agreed. That would bring a useful focus to the cross-party talks. Thirdly, we believe that there is a genuine danger that the debate might focus only on funding the Dilnot recommendations, and not on the existing pressures in the system. That must be avoided at all costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said. As one care charity told me yesterday,
“We can’t have jam tomorrow if we have no bread today”.
I, too, was concerned by the comments that the Minister made before the Select Committee on Health, specifically when he said:
“We don’t accept the position that there is a gap. We have closed that gap in the spending review. On the issue of unmet need, I am yet to find any agreement among academics on a definition of unmet need.”
Many councils would struggle to reconcile that statement with the reality of what is happening on the ground. Council budgets are being cut by more than a third over the course of this Parliament, and as we know, adult social care makes up the largest part of those budgets, at around 40%.
The Prime Minister is fond of quoting me on health funding at Prime Minister’s questions, but he only ever uses the bits that suit his purpose. If I may, I would like to give the House the full version of that quotation today, because what I was warning of was the danger of taking an unbalanced approach to public spending. Before the election, the Conservatives were saying that they would give the health service real-terms increases, over and above inflation—which have not, in fact, materialised—within a much reduced overall public spending envelope. My worry was that taking such an unbalanced approach could damage other public services, including those that are intrinsically linked to the health service. What I actually said was:
“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms within the overall financial envelope that he, as chancellor, is setting. The effect is that he is damaging, in a serious way, the ability of other public services to cope: he will visit real damage on other services that are intimately linked to the NHS,”
such as social care. I believe that this is what we are seeing right now.
Paul Burstow
The right hon. Gentleman made those remarks ahead of the spending review in 2010. The spending review also gave the Government the opportunity to make announcements about social care spending, and it is when we committed £7.2 billion extra for social care support. We have to challenge local authorities to use those resources wisely. Indeed, I hope that he will join me in challenging local authorities to commit to spend the resources that the Government have allocated for social care on social care.
Andy Burnham
Yes, I will. There is no difference between us on that, but there is a difference between us on the funding position that the Minister has set out. The King’s Fund and others have identified that there is a £1 billion funding gap in adult social care in England, not just because of the money but because of the demographic pressures, which we cannot get away from.
The Government’s commitment was to give more money to the health service, but we have produced figures showing a real-terms cut in outturn last year, and we also notice that transfers—indeed, recent transfers—have had to be made to the social care system, which implies that the Government have left it short, and that there is an emergency propping-up of the system, revealing the flaw in their position.
Kelvin Hopkins
To reinforce the point that my right hon. Friend makes, on a recent visit to my local hospital I was told by staff that they have more than 20 elderly patients who are perfectly well enough to live in a care home, but the care homes will not accept them and the funding cannot be found for them. Care is free in hospital, but it costs outside, so those people are forced to stay in hospital, and that places extra costs on the NHS.
Andy Burnham
The two systems do not work in such situations. The health service is intrinsically tied up with the social care system, and if it collapses the health service cannot discharge people from hospital. It is a false economy.
As for what is happening on the ground, the Minister commented on funding nationally, but in reality eight out of 10 councils now provide care only for those with substantial or critical needs: they are restricting their eligibility criteria. Age UK estimates that that leaves 800,000 people without any formal support, representing plenty of unmet need, and the situation also leads councils to increase charges for home care. The average cost for a disabled or older person paying for 10 hours a week of home care is now £7,015 a year. Never mind a death tax, that is a stealth tax—or a dementia tax, as people pay more and more for the costs of care while they are alive. It is not fair, it is not right, and we should do something about it.
That is why we say to the Government that we must address the question of the local government baseline alongside that of Dilnot. There cannot be a choice; we have to do both. If we do not and we fund only Dilnot, a larger number of people will pay increased charges but with a cap on what the charges might be, and that will not feel like the leap forward or the social progress that the Care and Support Alliance and others are looking for. It will not help us to drive up quality in the care system, either, but we desperately need to do so.
Councils are being forced to stretch inadequate budgets ever more thinly, and that is leading to corners being cut. I shall illustrate that directly with an example from my constituency. Several years ago, Wigan council contracted out home care services in our borough, and staff were transferred to a number of private providers, which have changed hands over the years. Just after Christmas, home care workers in Leigh came to my surgery and told me how things had broken down over the Christmas period, leaving vulnerable people, frankly, unsupported. They showed me the timesheets that they had been given by the company they were working for, and one of them included four simultaneous bookings for 12 o’clock—a point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South made—on different sides of town, with no travel time built in. Impossible. If we look at the whole day, we find appointments within 10 or 15 minutes of each other, which are meant to include travel time as well as time for looking after older people. That is fundamentally unacceptable.
I was told about staff working extra hours because of that situation, and then not being paid. They said that equipment such as aprons and gloves was not being provided, and that staff were funding them out of their own pockets, which again is absolutely wrong. They also raised concerns about rotas being issued only the night before, and care assistants not having keys to get in to meet the service-users they were visiting. Across the board, there were terrible problems and vulnerable people were being left without support.
Members might think that the company in question is a small, local one, but in fact it is Alpha Homecare Ltd, which is wholly owned by Carewatch Care Services Ltd, a national company with 154 offices nationwide. That is an example from Leigh, but I bet that other Members could cite similar ones.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I too have been visited by employees of Alpha Homecare in my neighbouring constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real concerns is that because those women are so dedicated to their work and often pick up work out of hours, without being paid to do so as they told me, it masks the fact that the situation is probably much worse than it appears on paper?
Andy Burnham
That is absolutely the point. This is not responsible capitalism; it is the worst kind of capitalism—making money by leaving vulnerable people unsupported and, as my hon. Friend says, taking advantage of the commitment and vocation of those on the front line, who will not walk away from the people they care for. It is unacceptable to not pay them and let them buy their own equipment, and to make profits off the back of that kind of behaviour.
Sarah Newton
I hesitate to intervene because it is important that the many Back Benchers who are here today are able to share their views. However, although none of us could support the appalling situation that the right hon. Gentleman described, he will be aware that the commissioner—the local authority—has a responsibility for the quality of the service. If he is concerned about it—I would be absolutely furious if I were the local Member of Parliament—he can take it up with the council so that the contract can be cancelled, and ultimately refer it to the Care Quality Commission.
Andy Burnham
I am aware of the system for raising complaints. I have done that, and I will now be inviting the CQC to take a look at the situation. I mentioned it because it illustrates vividly the thrust of my remarks. It is not an isolated example; the quality is not there in the system.
The problem is that we are in danger of getting what we pay for, or what we do not pay for. As the pressure increases, councils are forced to make budgets go ever further, and they contract companies that do not provide the standard we are looking for. We would not accept it for our own families, and we should not accept it for any families—that is particularly so for us, with our responsibility to speak up for the most vulnerable in our society. Let us resolve in this Parliament to do something about it and to make overdue reform of the care system in England a reality.
Tony Baldry
One of the advantages of having been in the House for a little while is that one spends some time on the Government side, some time on the Opposition side and some time on the Government side again—I hope not to be on the other side again but am quite content wherever. One of the things I have learnt is that which side one sits on does not change reality. The reality is that this challenge is so enormous that it will not be solved simply by all of us telling the Treasury, “You’ve given us £2 billion. Please can we have another £4 billion, or another £8 billion.” It will only be changed if we fundamentally rethink how we deliver services for the elderly. If all Members asked how many delayed discharges there were in the general hospitals in each of our constituencies, I suspect that we would find that it is a huge number—I am afraid that Oxfordshire is currently one of the worse offenders. We have to do better. We have to fundamentally rethink the whole way we deliver these services.
Andy Burnham
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who talked about the contributory principle, because there has to be a partnership between the individual and the state. If the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is ruling out general taxation, which I agree with him on because it would not be fair to make the younger population pay yet another cost, does he not accept that one ultimately comes to some difficult options in raising the extra money to build a fairer care system? We all have to start being honest about that and put some difficult options on the table, so that the public can have a debate about them.
Tony Baldry
Of course, general taxation will continue to play a part because it will fund the national health service, including the services delivered in acute general hospitals and so forth. However, far too many elderly ladies who go into a general hospital with a stroke or a broken hip stay there for longer than they need to for their treatment and could go home. We all need to engage in a debate in our constituencies that breaks out of the secret garden and involves far more people, including elected representatives, voluntary organisations and others.
Finally, I want to talk about carers, because I do not believe that any debate on care for the elderly should take place without a discussion about carers. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, so the House would be surprised if I did not mention them. There are two things that carers want. The first is recognition, which is now becoming slightly better. We need GPs and others to help people to understand that they are carers and to ensure, wherever possible, that they apply for a carers assessment, so that we can give support to carers. That will be particularly important if we are asking people to spend more time living at home when they are suffering from dementia and other conditions.
There are simple things that can be done. One of the worries of people who care for someone with dementia is that they will wander off and get lost. Age UK in Oxfordshire is starting a new initiative that encourages people to text a number if they see Mr Smith wandering down the street. Most of us are a bit embarrassed or shy if we see a neighbour wandering off and do not think that we should apprehend him, even if we think that he might not know where he is going or that it is not in his best interests to wander off. The question is how to deal with that as a community. There are lots of complexities in these matters. The whole community has to get involved if we are going to have more people living at home.
The second thing that carers want—I have said this on occasions too numerous to particularise—is breaks. We must ensure that there is a decent system of respite care. If there is not, carers sooner or later break, and when they break, they break for ever. That means that people whom it had been possible to care for at home go into a nursing or care home, never to emerge. With judicious and supportive carers’ breaks and respite care, many carers can be supported to carry on caring for a long time. Carers need to be valued and deserve to be valued. At every opportunity, the House should say an enormous thank you to the hundreds of thousands of carers in this country.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. The Care Quality Commission was encouraged to have light-touch regulation and to do only occasional inspections, of which the homes were usually warned. The inspections were not adequate, and many homes fell below the standards anybody would expect. If every care home was rigorously inspected, with spot checks from time to time, we might ensure that they lived up to the standards that we expect. However, it could cost a bit more because they might have to employ more qualified staff and so on.
We should professionalise the system and ensure that it is properly regulated and checked, even if it stays in the private sector. I personally prefer public provision, with people who are motivated by what I call the public service ethos. I have seen that working and I have seen what has replaced it. People come to my surgery and complain about being forced to move out of care homes that are being closed. That is especially difficult for those with dementia. People are pressed to go into other homes, which the residents’ families often find inferior. Some are good, but not all, and people are unhappy that three care homes in my constituency have closed.
The first home closed 10 to 12 years ago and I remonstrated with the local authority officer concerned. After an hour, he finally said that it was about costs: that private care homes pay lower wages, and that the staff work longer hours and have shorter holidays. I said that at least that was honest, but it was not right.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about young people paying. Most taxation involves redistribution to ourselves at other stages of our lives. When we pay national insurance contributions for pensions, we are in a sense saving for ourselves later through a state system. With the health service, we pay in when we can and take out when we need. It is a redistribution to ourselves. The young paying in now for long-term care is a sensible approach, especially as it will be proportionate.
Andy Burnham
The young would not be paying for their own care; we would be asking them to pay for the care of people who are already at an age when they might need the care system. In a world where those old people have built up valuable housing assets but young people cannot get on the housing ladder, is it right for us to say, “Here’s another tax for you to pay—for care for older people”?
Kelvin Hopkins
We must start getting the system right somewhere. We can adjust taxation provision in other ways in the short term, but in the long term we must have a properly progressive taxation system to pay for adult social care. I have just been to Denmark. Many Government Members and others say that high-tax countries are weak economies, but the tax take in Denmark as a proportion of gross domestic product is 18% higher than in Britain. The Danish have free tuition at universities, and students are paid €5,000 a year to go there up to the age of 25. I am not saying that we should do that, but I am making the point that taxation at that level, provided it is fair and progressive, does not ruin economies.
It is matter of choice. I have told the story of my young children many times in the Chamber. When my son asked for a second ice cream, my wife would say, “Mummy can’t afford it.” She was saying not that we could not afford it—we could—but, “You’re not having another ice-cream.” When people talk about affordability, they are saying, “We choose not to pay.” Those who constantly campaign for a low-tax society are doing down people who are in need. We must accept that if we want to be looked after when we are in need, we must pay taxes.
When people on the doorstep ask me what my problem is, I say, “I don’t pay enough tax.” I am sure other hon. Members do not say that. My income is now more than sufficient for me to live a very comfortable life, but the income of many young people is not sufficient for them. There is nothing wrong with shifting the burden of taxation to those who are on higher incomes or those for whom most expenses are over. It is unfashionable to say such things, but I happen to believe they are right.
I mentioned the care homes in my constituency, but another issue is that of payment. Our tax gap was not so long ago estimated at £120 billion a year. If we collected just 5% of that, we could pay for free long-term care without a problem. To be fair to the Government, they are starting to wake up to the need to close that tax gap—not enough, but a bit. We have left it alone for too long, because they do not want to upset rich people who are investing in the Cayman Islands or wherever.
The Government are starting to put a little pressure on and are employing a few more tax collectors. I know from my local VAT office that every inspector collects many times their own salary, so why not employ many more to get the VAT in? People recently went to prison for a tax fraud whereby they used VAT for import and export. Such people make billions out of hon. Members and our constituents. Let us round up a few of them and stop that loophole, and ensure that people who are well off and who should pay taxes do so.
I have known Andrew Dilnot for many years—he is a civilised, highly intelligent and wholly admirable man. He did a good job in his report of trying to find the fulcrum point—the Treasury might just wear what he is proposing, but if he went further it would probably say no. There is a parallel with Adair Turner, another intelligent, civilised man. He tried to change the pension system a bit. He knew that if he pushed the Treasury too far, it would react and he would not get what he wanted. Indeed, he had a hard job persuading the previous Chancellor to accept his proposals.
The authors of those reports try to come up with recommendations that will be acceptable to the Government and the Treasury instead of coming up with what they believe to be a strong position. The problem is not the electorate, but the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Ministers and officials will not accept the approach I suggest for a more civilised society.
Like all hon. Members, I do a lot of public speaking. I say, “What would you choose? Would you take the risk that your family member’s house will be compulsorily sold, and all the money used to look after granny, or will you pay a tiny bit more tax over a lifetime to make sure that granny is properly looked after without being forced to sell the house?” For wealthy people, that does not matter, but it does matter for many working class people, including first-time owner-occupiers. In many cases, they have bought council houses, which I do not believe is a good idea. They have a bit of equity in their family for the first time ever and it can be used to help their children—or grandchildren usually—to stay in the owner-occupied sector, but it is being eaten away by their being forced to pay for care for elderly relatives. Indeed, owner-occupation is now falling as a proportion of housing tenure. Whatever one thinks about owner-occupation or renting, that is happening, and a factor in that might be that people are being forced to sell houses to pay for care, and the equity is in effect being lost in rich taxpayers’ pockets, because they are the ones who can get away with not paying enough to ensure that granny is looked after.
We have to accept that people are living longer. We have not found a solution yet to Alzheimer’s or dementia. I hope that we do—it will solve many problems—but while we have not, we have to ensure that elderly people are cared for, which means that we have to pay for it properly. We will all get old one day, and we all might need this care one day. Certainly, for me and my family, I want to ensure that, as and when any of us need that care, it will be there for us and provided properly in a civilised and caring way.
Health and Social Care Bill
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Health and Social Care Bill following a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to MPs and peers and the Government’s response.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I am glad to have this opportunity again to set out the purposes of the Health and Social Care Bill. It will give patients more information and choice, so that they can share in decision-making about their care. It empowers front-line doctors and nurses to lead the delivery of care for their patients. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy and strengthens the voice of patients and the role of local government in integrating services and strengthening public health.
The values of the Bill are simple: putting patients first, trusting doctors and nurses, focusing on results for patients and maintaining the founding values of the NHS. We are constantly looking to reinforce those values, strengthening the NHS to meet the challenges it faces. We know change is essential; we will not let the NHS down by blocking change. Throughout the development and progress of this Bill, we have engaged extensively with NHS staff, the public, and parliamentarians.
The Health and Social Care Bill is the most scrutinised public Bill in living memory—[Interruption.] With over 200 hours of debate between the two Chambers and 35 days in Committee, we have ensured that Members and peers have had every opportunity to examine, understand and amend the Bill to—[Interruption.]
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We have made this legislation better and stronger. We have made significant changes to the Bill, including in response to the NHS Future Forum’s work and we have been open to any further changes that would improve or clarify the Bill. For example, so far in the Lords, the Government have accepted amendments tabled by a number of Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Baroness Williams wrote to their Liberal Democrat colleagues explaining their support for the Bill, with those changes and some further amendments they wish to see. They said, for example, how we must
“rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS”.
I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill is about quality, not competition on price. It will not permit any NHS organisation to be taken over by the private sector. It will put patients’ interests first. The Bill does not permit any extension of charging, and care will be free, based on need. Where the doctors and nurses on the ground know that competition is in the best interests of their patients—where it is based entirely on the quality of the care and treatment provided and not in any way on the price of that care and treatment—then competition can play an important role in driving up standards throughout the NHS.
We will not see a market free-for-all or a “US-style” insurance system in this country. I believe in the national health service. I am a passionate supporter of our NHS, and that is why I understand the passionate debate it arouses. It is also why I resent those Opposition Members who seek to misrepresent the NHS, its current achievements and its future needs. We—and I do mean all of us on the Government Benches—are using the debates in the Lords further to reassure all those who care about the NHS. I am grateful for this chance to reassure all my hon. Friends regarding the positive and beneficial effects of debate in the other place and about the work we are all doing to secure a positive future for the NHS.
Andy Burnham
On Friday, the Prime Minister promised there would be no more amendments, and yesterday lunch time the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said that the whole Government backed the Bill as it stood, but hours later the Deputy Prime Minister called for changes to a flagship Bill that he has supported all the way. The Government appear to be in complete disarray—or perhaps this was pre-agreed coalition choreography for the Deputy Prime Minister to save face. Either way, this House is entitled to ask, “What is going on?” The NHS matters too much for us to allow it to be carved up in the unelected House in cosy coalition deals, so we are grateful, Mr Speaker, that you have brought Ministers here today to start providing some answers.
First, on the process, will the Secretary of State tell the House when he was first made aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter? Was he consulted about its contents in advance and did he consent to the apparent change of policy or was he overruled by the Deputy Prime Minister? Who is in charge of health policy? Is anyone in charge?
Secondly, on policy, will the Secretary of State update the House on the precise detail of the changes that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking in the five areas he identifies? For instance, we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister, having previously defended the 49% private patient income cap for foundation trusts, now wants “additional safeguards”. What are those safeguards? Are the changes still under discussion or do they now represent Government policy? Yesterday, the Liberal Democrats played up the changes, but the Secretary of State’s Department has dismissed them as minor. Is his view the same as ours that the amendments do not affect the substance of his Bill but rather are cosmetic changes designed to make the Deputy Prime Minister look good in advance of his spring conference?
The Prime Minister has been clear: this Bill is about competition at the heart of the health service. The Deputy Prime Minister has supported it all the way. Are not these just empty gestures designed to save face? This is a bad Bill that cannot be amended. Last week, the president of the Lib Dems spoke for his party when he admitted that the Bill should have been dropped. Does that not explain what this posturing is all about? In their heart of hearts the Liberal Democrats hate this Bill but have not had the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and say so. Both coalition parties are putting their political pride before the best interests of the NHS. Is it not time for them to do what they said they would do at the start—listen to doctors and nurses and drop this Bill?
Mr Lansley
I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman even read the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, judging from what he has just said. I will tell him exactly what the process is. The process is for detailed discussion in another place. There were 15 days of debate in Committee in another place. It is the habit in another place not to amend the Bill in Committee, but to use those debates in Committee as a basis for amendment on Report. The process is straightforward. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, together with Baroness Shirley Williams, explained to their Liberal Democrat colleagues some of the amendments on which we have been working together in order to make sure that there is further reassurance. [Interruption.] That is literally true.
Let me put the right hon. Gentleman right about something. What is at the heart of the Bill is improving the quality of care for patients. I note that he did not quote me or represent that he was quoting me. I have never said that competition is at the heart of the Bill. Competition is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve quality. Where competition enables us to deliver better quality for patients, we should use it. Where integration of services and an absence of competition is in the interests of patients in delivering quality, that is the basis upon which the NHS should proceed. The Bill has been tremendously strengthened and is now a long-term sustainable basis for the NHS to deliver the quality of care for patients that we are looking for, while maintaining all the values of the NHS.
NHS Risk Register
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill in order to ensure that it informs public and parliamentary debate.
These are extraordinary times for the national health service and, indeed, for our democracy. A top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for, which was ruled out by the coalition agreement and which Parliament has yet to approve, is happening anyway. From the moment the White Paper was published 20 months ago, the NHS began to change in every constituency represented in the House. From that very moment, the Opposition consistently argued that the Prime Minister was making a catastrophic error of judgment in allowing that to happen.
Andy Burnham
Not at the moment.
When the Government chose to combine the biggest ever financial challenge in the NHS with the biggest ever top-down reorganisation, they gave the NHS mission impossible. The £20 billion so-called Nicholson challenge was always going to be a mountain to climb—it is an all-consuming challenge on its own—but with this reorganisation the Government have effectively tied not one but two hands behind the NHS’s back and taken away the maps and safety equipment. The Health Secretary began to dismantle the existing structures of the national health service across England before he had permission from Parliament to put new ones in their place. The result has been a loss of grip and focus at local level in the NHS just when it was most needed.
Andy Burnham
Let me make this point, and I will give way in my own time.
People talk of confusion and drift, of a huge loss of experienced staff and established relationships and of an NHS in which no one knows who is making the decisions. That leads to concerns about the risks being run with our NHS—risks to patient safety, service standards and in relation to the efficiency challenge. The chief executive of the NHS confirmed that to the Public Accounts Committee when he said:
“I’ll not sit here and tell you that the risks have not gone up. They have.”
So, that is a fact. The Prime Minister who promised to protect the NHS has put it at risk. That much is clear, but what are the precise risks that the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister are taking with the NHS, and how serious are the risks? Does not the public have a right to know what they are? You would think so, would you not, Mr Speaker, given how much the NHS matters to people and how utterly so many people with long-term illnesses and disabilities depend on it.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State he refused a freedom of information request to publish risk registers in September 2009. Why was that? Was he aware of the request, and why did he not publish?
Andy Burnham
I will come to that in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will answer his point directly.
Given the risks that are being taken, and given how much the NHS matters to people and how utterly they depend upon it, particularly those with long-term illnesses and disabilities, one would think they had a right to know about the risks that the Secretary of State is running with their health service. Well, one would be wrong. Instead, Members of this House and of another place have been asked to approve the most far-reaching reorganisation of this country’s best-loved institution by a Government who have not had the courtesy to give them the fullest possible assessment of its potential impact on the NHS.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly arguing for transparency on risk registers. Will he outline how many risk registers he used when he was the Secretary of State, and how many of them were published?
Andy Burnham
I did not launch the biggest ever reorganisation of the national health service, but I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment, if he is patient.
The Government have not given the House the courtesy of their own assessment of the risks that they are running with the NHS before they ask us to approve the biggest ever reorganisation at a time of financial challenge. It is quite simply disgraceful.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his excellent opening remarks. He knows that every year 37,000 people die earlier in the north of England because of health inequalities. Does he agree that as a result of the Government concentrating on a top-down reorganisation and making primary care trusts put aside billions for this reorganisation, risks to health inequalities can only grow?
Andy Burnham
Those on the Government Front Bench are laughing. They will not be laughing when I have finished my speech.
More than 150 experts in child health wrote to a newspaper last week to say that health inequalities among children will widen as a result of the Bill. Are Ministers listening? No. It is disgraceful that they behave as they do.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Will the Secretary of State confirm—sorry, the shadow Secretary of State—that in clause 3 of the Health and Social Care Bill for the first time in the history of the NHS reductions in inequalities in health have been put on the face of a Bill as a duty to achieve?
Andy Burnham
I confirm to the Minister that I am the shadow of my former self, but it sounds as though he would like to have me back. Expert opinion says that health inequalities will widen. Is he listening to that opinion? That is the question he should answer today.
Andy Burnham
I will give way later.
We called this debate today to give the House a chance to vote for the openness and transparency that the Government once promised. More specifically, in opening the debate, I have three clear purposes. First, I want to test the Government’s argument for withholding the transition risk register and clear up the confusion about current Government policy on risk management and freedom of information. Secondly, I want the debate today to give people watching in the country the real picture of what is happening on the ground in the NHS across England. I know that Labour Members’ contributions will bring that out.
Faced with a conspiracy of silence on the Government Benches to keep the risk register secret, it falls to the Opposition to tell patients and the public what this Government do not want them to know. Today I will reveal new information from locally held NHS risk registers about the real risks that the Government are running with patient care, public safety and the quality of NHS services in communities across England. Based on the information that I will reveal, my third purpose today is to counter what seems to be the Government’s main remaining argument in favour of their reorganisation—namely, that things have already gone so far that it is now better to carry on than to stop.
That argument will be demolished by the new information that the House will hear. It explains why so many professional organisations and royal colleges have already made the judgment that even now it is safer to drop the Bill and work back through the existing structures of the NHS than to proceed with the turbulent and risky experiment of introducing an entirely new legal structure for the NHS based on markets and competition. Indeed, the new information is so troubling that it raises a simple question for the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary: if they were aware of the risks on such a scale arising from their reorganisation, how could they possibly have allowed it to carry on so long?
Let me deal with the first point, testing the Government’s reasons for their action and their policy on FOI and risk management. Let us recap the events leading up to today. We on the Labour Benches always said that it was dangerous to reorganise the NHS at a time of intense financial pressure.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that there is a lot to get through, many Members wish to contribute, and interventions in any event should be brief.
Andy Burnham
I have never believed in a free market in the NHS. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now. That is why I oppose the Bill that the hon. Lady supports.
I was saying, before I was rudely interrupted, that we say it is dangerous to reorganise the NHS at this time. On the day the White Paper was published, I stood opposite the Secretary of State and described his plans as
“a huge gamble with a national health service that is working well for patients.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 663.]
He never has explained why this successful NHS needs to be turned upside down. From day one we have asked the Government to be up front about the precise nature and scale of the risks that they are taking. Their failure to provide a full assessment of those risks to inform the House’s consideration of their Bill led my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), to initiate a freedom of information request for the transition risk register. I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend did not request the full departmental risk register, which was subject to a similar request in August 2009 at the height of the swine flu pandemic.
Let me now directly answer the question that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) asked. There are three crucial differences between that situation and the subject of today’s debate. The first important difference—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen, as the Prime Minister got his facts wrong at Prime Minister’s Question Time.
The first important difference is that the debate relates to a different document. This debate is about the transition risk register, not the strategic risk register held by the Department. They are different things. The transition risk register relates solely to the reorganisation and the effects that the reorganisation could have. That brings me to my second reason why the situation is different. I did not initiate the biggest ever top-down reorganisation of the NHS. It is the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government to do that. We on the Labour Benches who care about the NHS have a right to know what damage that reorganisation might cause. The Government are not just launching the biggest ever reorganisation; they are doing it at a time of the biggest ever financial challenge in the history of the NHS.
The third reason—
Andy Burnham
Conservative Members should listen. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked for the reasons. The third reason the situation is different is that the request submitted in August 2009 was from a member of the public, not from a Front-Bench politician—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I make it clear to Back Benchers that the shadow Secretary of State is clearly not giving way at present, and that in the circumstances they should exercise some self-restraint?
Andy Burnham
They do not want to listen because it does not suit their argument. This was meant to be their whole reason today, and we heard it from the Prime Minister earlier, but now they do not want to hear the reasons.
The third reason this situation is different from the one in August 2009 is that at that time there was not a precise ruling from the Information Commissioner, but there is a clear ruling from the commissioner in this case. Those are three important differences. Let me remind the House of that ruling. It stated:
“The Commissioner finds that there is very strong public interest in disclosure of the information, given the significant change to the structure of the health service the government’s policies on the modernisation will bring.”
That is where one of the Government’s key arguments for withholding the register falls apart. The Minister in another place has repeatedly defended the Government’s action by saying that they had published a full impact assessment for the Bill—[Interruption.] “It’s true”, says the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). Let me answer that point. Having had sight of the impact assessment and the transition risk register, the commissioner said that
“disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published.”
In other words, the impact assessment that the Secretary of State has published is not good enough and the public deserve to know the full truth about his reorganisation.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has been converted to the cause of freedom of information but hope that it is not for a fourth reason: he was then in government but is now in opposition. Will he give a commitment that, should he ever again become Secretary of State for Health, he will grant every FOI request for a risk register?
Andy Burnham
They should be judged on their merits, but let me say that it was the Labour party that introduced the Freedom of Information Act, so we will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman. As I will explain in a moment, we did publish risk registers under freedom of information rules, so let us keep the high horse out of today’s debate, if he does not mind. We were used to hearing pious lectures from Liberal Democrat Front Benchers on openness, transparency and how the supremacy of freedom of information trumped everything else, and we heard from Conservative Front Benchers that sunlight was the best disinfectant, but that all seems a long time ago. We now have the sorry spectacle of Government Members on both Front Benches defying a clear ruling by the Information Commissioner and taking it to a tribunal hearing early next month. This action raises serious questions on what precisely is the Government’s policy on these matters, as there is a real danger that it will look confused and contradictory. A search of the Treasury website brings up a clear statement of policy on the Government’s principles for risk management. It states:
“Government will be open and transparent about its understanding of the nature of risks to the public and about the process it is following in handling them. Government will make available its assessments of risks that affect the public, how it has reached its decisions, and how it will handle the risk. It will also do so where the development of new policies poses a potential risk to the public.”
That is the statement of the Government’s policy as it stands today. Why on earth are they not following it?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I declare my interest. I remind my right hon. Friend that yesterday statistics were published showing that 1.3 million diabetics had not had their annual checks. It is important that we have this information on the risks posed to diabetics by the new commissioning arrangements. Does he not think that that is an argument for full transparency?
Andy Burnham
My right hon. Friend eloquently makes the point I made at the beginning of the debate: people with long-term conditions, such as diabetes, who depend utterly on the NHS have a right to know whether there is any risk to the continuity or integration of the care they receive. I understand that representatives of patient groups, who perhaps have not been heard enough in this debate, made that point directly to the Prime Minister on Monday. It is absolutely essential that their voice is heard. They say that the Bill represents a danger to the integrated care that they receive and depend upon. It seems pretty clear to me that the Government are not following their own policy—[Interruption.]
Andy Burnham
I quoted from the policy, but the Secretary of State is not publishing the risk register—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt, but I must say to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who no doubt is an immensely brilliant individual, that in her capacity as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, at this stage in her career her role is to fetch and carry notes and nod in the right places, not to conduct a running commentary on the debate. I trust that she will now exercise a self-denying ordinance for the remainder of the debate.
Andy Burnham
As I was saying, the Government clearly are not following the statement of policy set out on the Treasury website, but the strange thing, as the House will hear shortly, is that NHS bodies across the country at local and regional level are following the policy closely. As I understand it, the Treasury’s theory is that the more widely the risks are understood and shared, the greater the ability to mitigate them. Indeed, I recall the Minister stating in a press release as recently as last October, the month before the commissioner’s ruling, that an open and transparent NHS would be a safer NHS. Two simple questions follow: why is the Department for Health not following stated Government policy and what it said in October was its own policy; and is the Department in breach of Government policy, or has it secured an exemption from it? I hope that the Health Secretary will shed light on this point today, because at present it does not look too good.
Let me turn to the Government’s other reasons for fighting publication. First, it is claimed that disclosure would
“jeopardise the success of the policy”
That is a moot point. The Information Commissioner said that it is a strange defence, given the Government’s other statements on openness and scrutiny building more robust plans. Secondly, it is claimed that it could have a chilling effect and that officials would be less frank in future. Given that risk assessment is a core part of all public servants’ responsibilities, not an optional activity, that claim was not accepted by the commissioner. Thirdly, it is claimed that the names of junior officials could be disclosed, but the commissioner has said that he was satisfied that the register would identify only senior civil service or senior NHS officials.
Fourthly, it is claimed that disclosure would set a difficult precedent and could lead to the publication in future of information relating to national security. The weakness of this argument, as the commissioner pointed out, is that a precedent has already been set, and it was set by the Labour party when we were last in government. A comparable risk register linked to the specific implications of a particular policy—the Heathrow third runway—was released by the previous Government in March 2009 following a ruling by the Information Commissioner on a request from the current Transport Secretary. Why are this Government not following the clear precedent set by the previous Government? That is the answer to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. In truth, these four reasons seem to me to be the desperate defences of a desperate Government who have something to hide and a desperate Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Let me offer the shadow Secretary of State a view that has been put to the House previously:
“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]
Does he recognise that view?
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State clearly was not listening. It is not a comparable situation. We are talking about a different document. Does he understand that? It is a different document. How more simply does he want me to say it? He was just talking about the strategic risk register. Today the House is debating the transition risk register, and I would be grateful if he did not continue to muddy those waters.
Why are the Government not following the precedent we set? I do not know whether they will try to produce any more desperate reasons today, but it looks to me as though they have no real defence, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has pointed out. People will be expected later to troop through the Lobby for the Government, without so much as a fig leaf of a principled argument to support their call. Liberal Democrats, who used to lecture us on the supremacy of freedom of information, will be exposed once again: spineless, co-conspirators against the NHS, acting out of nothing but gut loyalty to the suicide pact that is this coalition.
That brings me to my second point. What exactly are Government Members all so desperate to hide, and what precise risks are they running with the NHS? When the Prime Minister made his disastrous decision to allow the Health Secretary to break the promises that he had personally made to NHS staff—indeed, those promises were then enshrined in the coalition agreement—and to proceed with his top-down reorganisation, we warned that the hard-won improvements in waiting times over the Labour years would be placed at risk. That is exactly what has happened.
The Government inherited a strong, self-confident NHS, independently judged one of the best health services in the world, if not the best, and in just 20 months they have reduced it to a service that is demoralised, destabilised and fearful of the future. Throughout the country there are growing signs of an NHS in distress. A and E departments are under increasing pressure, with figures published last week showing that the Government missed their own lowered A and E target for the seventh week in a row.
Between December 2010 and December 2011, there was a 13% increase in the number of people waiting longer than 18 weeks and a 105% increase in people waiting longer than a year. The number of patients waiting more than six weeks for their diagnostic tests has more than doubled, and the number waiting more than 13 weeks has more than trebled.
We have a habit in this House of reeling off such statistics, but every single one represents a family living with worry, a life on hold. On Monday the Health Secretary said that
“pressure on hospitals is reducing.”
If ever I heard it, there speaks a voice from the bunker: a sure sign of what happens when you surround yourself with people who say only what you want to hear.
Mr Lansley
We must proceed from facts and be accurate. The number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment in May 2010—the time of the most recent election—was 18,458. In the latest figures, published for December 2011, that figure had more than halved, to 9,190.
Andy Burnham
I will trade figures with the right hon. Gentleman. He quotes a different time frame from the one that I quoted. If he is going to resort—
Andy Burnham
No, I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman. He resorts to those tactics and gives us the view that the pressure on hospitals is reducing, when all over the country hospitals are under intense pressure and A and E departments and wards are being closed, but, if he expects us to take those statements from him, he should know that we are not going to do so. This is not a man living in the real world, and he is not listening to the warnings that are coming from the NHS. It can be no surprise to people that the NHS is slipping backwards, because that is precisely what local and regional NHS bodies have been warning him. The fact is—[Interruption.] I will not give way. The fact is—
Mr Lansley
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the purposes of accuracy, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to have said that 105% more patients waited longer than a year for their treatment in December 2011 compared with December 2010, when he should know that the figure—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair, Mr Lansley. As—[Interruption.] Order. As you well know, that is a point of debate.
Andy Burnham
Even though it was not a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just answer it. I was comparing December 2010 with December 2011. That is a different time frame from the one that the Secretary of State quoted, which involved a time frame since the election. The Government inherited an NHS in which those waiting times were going down, and that is why he quoted those figures. On his watch, they are going back up, and it is a disgrace that he does not have the courage to admit it.
The fact is, as I said a moment ago, that warnings have been coming from the NHS, and I want the House to listen carefully to this information. The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening. The Government will not publish the transition risk register, but we have a pretty good understanding of what is in it from the local and regional risk registers that have been made public in line with Government policy as expressed on the Treasury website. So what do they say about waiting times?
Let us take the risk register from NHS Bradford and Airedale. Its assessment warns of
“a risk of poor patient access and assessment within four hours at Leeds Teaching Hospital due to significant staffing pressures resulting in potential patient safety issues and delay”.
The likelihood of that happening is considered 4, likely to happen, and the consequences are rated 4, major, giving an overall risk register rating of 16, which is extreme.
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State says that it is not actually going to happen, but that assessment was made after mitigation. The assessment states that it is likely, that it is major and that mitigating effects have not taken the risk away. He should probably learn to understand the risk register before he refuses to publish it.
NHS Surrey warns of
“performance measures as set out in vital signs for 18 weeks are not met due to a loss of capacity or focus or availability of funding”.
The rating is 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences. The risk has not been mitigated.
What do the local risk registers say about care for cancer patients? Worryingly, some predict—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State would do well to listen; he is not good at listening. He would do well just to listen to what I am saying. Worryingly, some predict poorer treatment for cancer patients.
NHS Lincolnshire’s corporate risk register states:
“New risk in December—the continuation of the Cancer Service improvement, cancer network and the achievement of cancer waiting time targets”.
The risk rating is 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences.
At NHS Bradford and Airedale again, there is a similar risk, with
“poor patient access to cancer waiting times 62 days urgent referral to first treatment, resulting in poor patient care.”
Its rating was 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
No, the House will listen to this information.
What do the risk registers say about patient and public safety and about staffing levels? South Central strategic health authority’s risk register warns—
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen—[Interruption.] I have taken interventions, and he would do well to listen. I am trying to get through my remarks so that colleagues can speak. He should try listening for once. He is not doing a very good job of it at the moment.
South Central strategic health authority warns of a
“risk that the pace and scale of reform, if coupled with savings achieved through cost reduction rather than real service redesign, could adversely impact on safety and quality, with the system failing to learn the lessons from Mid Staffordshire and Winterbourne View.”
NHS London warns:
“There is a risk that women may be exposed to unsafe services which could cause them harm.”
NHS Northamptonshire and NHS Milton Keynes warn that
“failure to deliver national objectives, business continuity and statutory functions due to lack of capacity, capability, retention and availability across the workforce resulting from the proposed Health and Social Care Bill.”
Those are risks created by the Secretary of State and his Bill. It is utterly disgraceful.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given that this House and the other place are having to decide on the biggest upheaval in the NHS’s history, is it not absolutely essential that all the information and all the risks are in the public domain? In that context, and in the context of what my right hon. Friend has said, is it not absolutely imperative that the Francis report into the scandal at Stafford hospital is published before the Bill has completed all its stages in Parliament?
Andy Burnham
Of course, there are lessons to be learned for those in all parts of the House when the Francis report is published, and I can say, on behalf of Labour Members, that we will learn those lessons. However, this Bill goes to the heart of what happened in that case, because it is about autonomy in hospital services, and we know that when one makes an organisation autonomous it can sometimes fail as well as get better. I cannot understand how the Government can be legislating before they have even waited to hear the conclusions of the public inquiry that they set up. Surely that has implications for the Secretary of State’s Bill. Why has he not waited to hear what it says so that it can be properly reflected in the design of the service that he is creating?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Given that the right hon. Gentleman opposed the public inquiry at the time, will he now agree with Government Members, particularly the Secretary of State, that it was vital that it took place and that the lessons be learned?
Andy Burnham
One of my first acts as incoming Health Secretary was to commission Robert Francis QC to conduct an independent investigation into the events at Stafford on a local level. [Interruption.] Government Front Benchers are saying that it was not a public inquiry. They are right, but let me explain why. I did not commission a full public inquiry because, in my judgment, such an inquiry at that time, with all the glare and focus that it would bring to the hospital, would distract the hospital from its more immediate priority of making services safe as quickly as possible. I said to the chairman of the independent inquiry that if, at any time, he wanted to come back to me and ask for powers to compel witnesses, I would be well disposed towards receiving such requests. Given all the events that have taken place, to hear that the hospital is again having difficulties—that the A and E department is temporarily closed—gives me genuine cause for concern that the fundamental and far-reaching problems there have not been adequately addressed. That should concern us all.
I was talking about the risks identified by the NHS Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes risk register regarding the loss of capacity and problems in carrying out statutory functions resulting from the chaos caused by the Bill.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Andy Burnham
Not for the moment.
The risk rating in that risk register was 16—extreme. Let me focus on the phrase, “statutory functions”, because it is important that the House fully appreciates what that involves. One of the statutory functions of the primary care trusts that have been wound down before new structures are in place is the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. What does the NHS London risk register say on this point? [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to listen. I am sorry if it is inconvenient for the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), but she will listen. The risk register makes the chilling prediction that the huge loss of named or designated professionals from PCTs across London, and the subsequent damage to information sharing, may lead to “preventable harm to children”. That risk was rated at 20 pre-mitigation and 15 post mitigation.
It is not just NHS London that is saying this. Let me quote again from the NHS Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes risk register; this time I ask the House to listen very carefully. It warns of a
“failure to deliver statutory requirements which leads to the significant harm or fatalities of children and vulnerable adults”.
That was originally rated as an extreme risk and, even after mitigation measures, it is still rated as “very high” with the possible frequency of occurrence being “monthly”.
This is what the national health service is telling the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister about the potential effects of their reorganisation. It is appalling and shocking. They are taking unacceptable risks with children’s safety and people’s lives. If this is what the NHS has been telling Ministers for 20 months, since the White Paper was published, how can they possibly justify pressing on with this dangerous reorganisation? Has not what remained of any justification for carrying on just collapsed before us? If this is what is published in local risk registers, that prompts the question of what on earth they are trying to hide in the national assessment. The simple truth is that they cannot publish because if people knew the full facts, that would demolish any residual support that this reorganisation might have.
That brings me to my third point—the Government’s claim that it is safer to press on with reorganisation than to deliver GP commissioning through the existing legal structure of the NHS. The evidence that I have laid out comprehensively dismisses that argument. If the Government were to abandon the Bill and work with the existing legal structure of the NHS, that would bring immediate stability to the system and, as the British Medical Journal has calculated, save over £1 billion on the cost of reorganisation. The Government’s claim that it is safer to press on is rejected by the overwhelming majority of clinical and professional opinion in England. The royal colleges and other professional organisations have given careful consideration to the pros and cons of proceeding and abandoning. Some disruption comes with either course of action, but given the terrible mess that we are now in, those royal colleges have concluded, one by one, that the interests of patients are best served by working to stabilise the system through existing structures.
It is not difficult to do that. PCT clusters could be maintained and the emerging clinical commissioning groups could simply take charge of the existing legal structure that is the residual PCT, and indeed any buildings and staff that they may still have. The painful truth is that delivering GP-led commissioning, which is where the Health Secretary began, could have been delivered without this Bill. Let me say to him again today that my offer still stands. If he drops the Bill, I will work with him to introduce GP-led commissioning using his emerging clinical commissioning groups.
However, that must be done in the right way. The local NHS risk registers raise concerns not only about reorganisation but about fundamental flaws in the policies that the Health Secretary wants to take forward. NHS Lincolnshire warns of a
“conflict of interest in CCG commissioning and provision: perceived or actual conflicts of interest arising from GPs as both providers and commissioners may impair the reputation of the CGG and, if not managed, may result in legal challenge.”
That has a moderate likelihood of happening but a consequence rated as catastrophic. A GP surgery in West Sussex has written to all its patients offering them
“private screening for heart and stroke risk”
from Health Screen First, for which, in return, the surgery receives a nominal fee from Health Screen First. In Haxby, GPs tried to restrict minor operations that are currently free on the NHS and at the same time launch their own private minor operations service, sending patients a price list. More broadly, stories are emerging around the country of plans by clinical commissioning groups to stop purchasing services from local hospitals, such as dermatology in Southwark and out-patients in south London. There are also plans to remove services from Stafford hospital, which we talked about earlier.
This unstable market in health care could have a very real effect on the viability and critical mass of essential hospital services, resulting in full or partial hospital closures. I have never heard of any plans from the Government to mitigate these risks other than the simple statement, “The market will decide.”
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In view of what was said about Stafford hospital and the implications for patient care in North Staffordshire, may I say to my right hon. Friend and to the House that it is vital that we get the full information and full risk assessments that are required in order to be able to plan for the NHS that we need, and that this important debate is part of that?
Andy Burnham
What happened at Stafford gives us very important lessons about the dangers of autonomy, and this Bill is all about extolling the benefits of autonomy. As Health Secretary, I had to deal with that situation. In some ways, it was a legacy of problems with our own policy; I accept and acknowledge that before the House. Because of that situation, I proposed the power to de-authorise a foundation trust and brought it forward in the Health Act 2009. If a hospital gets into trouble, it cannot carry on being autonomous and unable to improve, but should be brought back and helped to improve. I proposed the duty of autonomy.
In fact, that duty was recommended by Robert Francis QC in the first stage inquiry that he delivered to me. I accepted his recommendation. The Health and Social Care Bill abolishes the power to de-authorise a foundation trust. A recommendation from Robert Francis is being abolished by the Bill before the Government even give him the courtesy of allowing him to report. I say again that I do not have a good answer to why they are legislating before hearing from his inquiry. As was said a moment ago, there are plans in Stafford for GPs to do more in the community. That might be a good idea, I do not know, but it might further destabilise that hospital. That should be a cause for concern.
Julian Smith
Last week, I met Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier. To clarify, neither the chief executive nor the chairman raised any of the points that he has raised. Not only that, but the local GP commissioning consortia are perfectly happy and are asking me and other local MPs to push ahead with the Bill. Why is the right hon. Gentleman such a scaremongering buffoon?
Andy Burnham
I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that such an intervention is appropriate. Why did he not ask the chairman and chief executive about this matter? Why does it take me to go and research the risk register—[Interruption.] Listen to the answer. Why does it take me to research the risk register in his constituency and to tell him about the risks to the NHS in his constituency, which he clearly does not know about? I suggest that he goes away from this Chamber right now and searches online, where he will find that risk register. Perhaps he will learn something about his constituency.
We are told that the market will decide. Last week, the Government received a specific warning from more than 150 members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that the market-based approach envisaged in the Bill will have
“an extremely damaging effect on the health care of children”.
They went on to say:
“Care will become more fragmented, and families and clinicians will struggle to organise services for these children. Children with chronic disease and disability will particularly suffer, since most have more than one condition and need a range of different clinicians.”
They stated that:
“The Bill is misrepresented by the UK Government as being necessary”
and that it will
“harm those who are most vulnerable.”
Those are not my words, but those of clinicians. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) wants to dismiss them, that is up to her, but she would do well to listen to them.
Warnings do not come any more serious than the one that I have just read out. It shows why the Government will not publish the risk register: they know that the case for their Bill would be demolished in an instant. People watching this debate will ask how it is possible to proceed when experts make such warnings and when NHS bodies warn of fatalities. To press on regardless would be utterly irresponsible and unforgivable. That is what the Prime Minister said today that he plans to do.
The truth is that the Government are not listening, as we have seen throughout this debate. The Prime Minister is surrounding himself with people who say what he wants to hear, while closing the door of No.10 Downing street in the faces of those who do not. He will not listen to the doctors and nurses with whom he was once so keen to have his photograph taken. It could not be clearer: he is putting his political pride and the need for the Government to save face before the best interests of the national health service. He is gambling with patients, with public safety and with this country’s best-loved institution. The Prime Minister asked people to trust him with the NHS, but we have learned today that he is running unforgivable risks with it. What his Government are doing is wrong and they need to be stopped.
I call on Members across the House to put the NHS first tonight. Vote with us for the publication of the risk register so that the public can see what this reorganisation will do to their NHS. They deserve the full truth and tonight this House can give it to them and correct the Government who have got things so badly wrong. I say to people outside who are watching this debate, join this fight to save the NHS for future generations. The NHS matters too much to too many people for it to be treated in this way. People have not voted for what is happening. [Interruption.] Not a single Government Member who is shouting at me now can look their constituents in the eye and say, “I told you that I was going to bring forward the biggest ever top-down reorganisation.” The more people who join this fight, the stronger our voice will become.
We promised this Government the fight of their life for betraying that trust and that is what we will give them. Tonight, this House has an opportunity to speak for the millions of people who care about the NHS and are worried about what is happening to it. I implore this House to take that opportunity and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Secretary of State for Health, I say to the House that in my time as Deputy Speaker, this is easily and by some margin the worst-tempered debate that I have chaired. I ask Members on both sides of the House to lower the temperature so that we can have a decent and full debate.
Mr Lansley
The curious thing, as I know my hon. Friend will appreciate, is that even the Leader of the Opposition says that reform is needed in the NHS because of the challenges that it faces. Of course we can debate what the nature of the reform should be, but the idea that we can simply stand still and that nothing in the NHS needs to change is not the view of NHS staff, patients, the Labour party or the Government. We therefore have to consider what the nature of that reform needs to be, and I believe in patient choice and empowering doctors and nurses on the front line to deliver care. I believe in cutting bureaucracy and removing whole tiers of management to enable that to happen, and in common with my Liberal Democrat friends and colleagues I believe in strengthening democratic local accountability in the NHS and strengthening public health services through local government operations.
The worst possible thing for me to do would be to say, “We need to reform the NHS because it is doing so badly.” I do not believe that, but I do believe we have to root out poor performance. I was shocked to hear the shadow Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who has disappeared, talking about Stafford hospital. They were the ones who never appreciated the risk of what was happening there. They know that they went through reorganisations without ever addressing the risk. The dreadful things there happened on their watch, so they might at the very least have come here and apologised. The right hon. Member for Exeter came to the Dispatch Box when he was a Minister and said, “Oh, it’s nothing to do with me, it’s all to do with the management of the hospital.”
I believe in foundation trust hospitals, which apparently the Labour party now does not. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say that he is in favour of foundation trust hospitals, but that if they get into difficulties the best thing is for them to be run by the Secretary of State. He might talk to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was the Secretary of State when, in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, dozens, perhaps hundreds of patients died of clostridium difficile infection at the Kent and Sussex hospital. That was an NHS trust, not a foundation trust. The Department of Health and the Secretary of State have no God-given ability to run hospitals directly and do so better than they can be run by the doctors, nurses and managers in charge. The point is that there must be proper accountability, and through HealthWatch, local government and the responsibilities of Monitor we will have a proper accountability structure in the Bill.
Andy Burnham
I said that we would learn the lessons of what happened in the Mid Staffordshire trust, and I apologised at the time on behalf of the Government.
The first-stage Francis inquiry recommended the de-authorisation of foundation trusts. Why is the Secretary of State removing that power in the Bill before Robert Francis has reported again?
Mr Lansley
We will, of course, fully abide by the terms of the Act. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the Information Commissioner himself said, we are proceeding precisely in line with the provisions of the Act.
Mr Lansley
Let me make one additional point, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman—again.
All the information was in the original impact assessment. Information was put into the revised impact assessment in September, as is customary on the introduction of a Bill to another place, but in recognition of the Information Commissioner’s decision on 2 November, the Minister in another place, my noble Friend Lord Howe, described—[Interruption.] I will if I need to, but I do not intend to read it all out. He set out the issues covered by the transition risk register to make Members in the other place aware of precisely what those risks were.
Andy Burnham
As I mentioned, there is a precedent here under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. I refer to the request for the risk register on the Heathrow runway. The Information Commissioner having ruled on it, the previous Government published the register. The Government are not following that precedent but instead fighting it in a tribunal. If, on 5 and 6 March, the tribunal does not find in the Government’s favour, will he publish the risk register, or will he carry on fighting?
Mr Lansley
I heard the right hon. Gentleman mention his precedent, but it was not a precedent, because that was a risk register relating to an operational matter. I explained to him that the risk registers published by strategic health authorities relate to operational matters.
Mr Lansley
No, the risk register that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about relates to policy development, not an operational matter. It is a high-level risk register akin to others across Government that, if published, would be prejudicial to frank advice in policy development. [Interruption.] I am only repeating the position that he took when Secretary of State. Let me quote him:
“We have determined that the balance of public interest strongly favours withholding the information”.
I will take his advice and stick to my view: the release of the risk register does not serve the public interest, even if it might serve his political interest to make a song and dance about it. I have been clear about it, as has my noble Friend. The information on which any debate about the Bill should be conducted is already in the public domain.
Gareth Johnson
Yes, I would be surprised if that had happened.
It would be wrong for there to be routine publication of risk registers without any kind of control. The beauty of risk registers is that they enable civil servants to think the unthinkable.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is no longer in his place, made the point that there is a difference between the approaches of the Government and the Opposition. If we are honest with ourselves, we must recognise that every Opposition in this place has been guilty of some scaremongering. There is no doubt about that, so let us be mature about it. Whether it has been my party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, we have all been guilty of a certain amount of scaremongering. Presenting a pessimistic view as a real likelihood is part of the game of political football. However, there is a huge danger that information from the risk register could end up misleading the public and giving them inaccurate information.
Andy Burnham
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the words of mine that he referred to related to the strategic risk register? We are debating a different document today. He seems to misunderstand risk registers, because he described them as presenting a worst-case scenario. They do not, and I can provide him with the material showing that right now if he would like to see it. The examples that I read in my speech were given a likelihood rating. They were said to be likely to happen and not mitigated by the steps that had been taken. I am afraid he has not grasped that point, and he needs to.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), although given that the Order Paper reads,
“this House calls on the Government to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill”,
I wondered whether he was in the right debate. He spent most of his time not mentioning the Information Commissioner, although he mentioned risk in the last minute.
I want to focus on the argument over the risk register. I support the Secretary of State’s decision to challenge the Information Commissioner’s decision ordering the release of the Department of Health risk register. It is important to consider the procedure followed by the commissioner in determining whether it was the right decision to make. The Secretary of State’s decision to challenge the commissioner’s ruling is, procedurally, absolutely correct. The procedures set out in the Freedom of Information Act, as amended—[Interruption.] It is important to set the tone and background.
Rehman Chishti
The shadow Secretary of State does not understand the legislation. That is why he is making these assumptions. Section 35(1) makes it clear that:
“Information held by a government department…is exempt information if it relates to…the formulation or development of government policy”.
[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like what they are hearing, but I hope that they will show the same common courtesy that I have shown them in the past. Section 35(1) makes it clear that the procedures applied by the Secretary of State were in line with the Freedom of Information Act, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. Under that procedure and statute, he is entirely within his rights, using the correct procedure, to apply section 57 to appeal the ruling to the tribunal. That is absolutely right and proper.
It is important to say that we have the right—[Interruption.] I will come to the point on which the shadow Secretary of State keeps interrupting me—I am sure that he is not doing so to put me off making the point that he does not want to hear. Under the procedure in section 57, the Secretary of State can challenge a decision. It is important in our system—whether the criminal justice or the civil system—to have checks and balances on decisions that are made, whether by the Information Commissioner or by judges. If the shadow Secretary of State is now saying that the Information Commissioner’s ruling should be final, with no right of appeal, he should have said that when the Freedom of Information Act was being passed. However, he did not do so, and there is a right of appeal, where cases go to the tribunal. Even beyond that though, he asked earlier whether the Secretary of State could give us an assurance that he would not challenge the decision of the tribunal. Being realistic, how can the Secretary of State give that guarantee? The right hon. Gentleman knows, and I know, that the Secretary of State does not know what the judgment of the tribunal will be. He also knows that the rules that his Government passed, in section 59 of the Act, enable a referral to the High Court where there might be a wrong point of law.
Andy Burnham
Briefly, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a big difference between the Secretary of State being within his rights and his being right not to publish? We accept that he is within his rights, but is he right? The precedent was set by the previous Government. We published a risk register after receiving a ruling from the Information Commissioner. That is the precedent.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for that point, to which I shall return. In my view, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to use that discretion. The shadow Secretary of State knows the Department of Health well because he has been there, but I should point out to him that a spokesman for the Department of Health said:
“We have never previously published our risk registers as we consider them to be internal management documents. We believe that their publication would risk seriously damaging the quality of advice given to Ministers and any subsequent decision-making”.
I would say to the shadow Secretary of State—[Interruption.] He asked the question; I would be grateful if he listened to the answer. The reason why I say that the Secretary of State is within his powers and is right to do what he did is that never before have any Government or Secretary of State released that information. Being a sensible, considerate and fair man—which the Secretary of State is—he is right to challenge the decision, because that information has never been released before, as stated by the spokesmen for the Department of Health and made clear on page 2 of the information pack provided by the Library.
I also want to refer the shadow Secretary of State to another point. He has previously used the exemptions in section 36. Either we have exemptions or we do not, but the current exemptions, whether in section 36 or section 35, were put in place by the previous Government. If they did not want those exemptions—if they had said that everything should be in the public domain—they should have made that clear. I remind the Opposition of the saying “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. The fact is that you applied similar provisions, whether in section 35 or section 36, to withhold information. If you were able to do that in the public interest, then this Government, applying the same procedures and the same rules, can do so too. There is simply no point having legislation, in the form of the Freedom of Information Act, and now suddenly, when you are in opposition, you move the goalposts. In my view, that is totally and utterly unacceptable. It is also important to note that the Department of Health—
Oral Answers to Questions
Andy Burnham Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burns
It is a bit rich for the former Secretary of State to bleat about that. What I want is the finest health care for patients so that they are treated more effectively and quickly and their long-term conditions are managed in a way that enhances the patient experience.
Mr Lansley
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the average time that in-patients waited for treatment at the time of the last election was 8.4—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question and I am telling him the answer. The average time was 8.4 weeks. That has gone down to 7.7 weeks. For out-patients, the average waiting time was 4.3 weeks at the time of the election. That has gone down to 3.8 weeks. The number of patients waiting for more than 18 weeks at the time of the election was—
Mr Lansley
I made it very clear after the election that, on clinical advice, we would relax the 98% target to 95%. Patients are being seen within four hours in A and E far more consistently in England than in Wales, where there is a Labour Government. Let me remind the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) that we have more than halved the number of patients who wait more than a year for treatment since the election.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
My hon. Friend is right about the need to invest in early intervention and prevention. In addition to the £7.2 billion that we will invest this Parliament, this January we announced an extra £120 million for the remainder of the year to support care services. Furthermore, we are funding, jointly with the Local Government Association, work to support councils in delivering improved productivity and sharing best practice to ensure that they deliver improvements to services, and not just cuts.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that he would listen to doctors and nurses but yesterday shut the door of No. 10 Downing street in their faces. But now things take a sinister turn. Let me quote from a letter from an NHS director received last week by a respected clinician of many years’ standing:
“I understand that you are a signatory to a letter which highlights your personal concerns about the Health Bill. It is inappropriate for individuals to raise their personal concerns about the proposed Government reforms. You are therefore required to attend a meeting with the Chief Executive to explain and account for the actions you have recently taken.”
Will he confirm that it is now his policy to threaten NHS staff with disciplinary action if they speak out against his reorganisation?
Mr Lansley
No, it is not my policy. I do not know the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and if he had shown it to me beforehand I could have investigated it. Yesterday, I and the Prime Minister met doctors and medical professionals and they discussed precisely how to improve services for patients. I went to Queen’s hospital in Romford and met nurses, midwives and doctors working to make the trust one in which their public can have confidence and, in due course, a foundation trust. All these things—foundation trusts, clinical commissioning, patient choice—used to be things that he believed in. They are now things that we are achieving but which he has rejected.
Andy Burnham
It is, it would seem, the Secretary of State’s new top-down bullying policy, and it is happening right across the NHS. How does he reconcile that with what he used to say about whistleblowing? I remind him of what he once said:
“The first lines of defence against bad practice are the doctors and nurses”,
who
“have a responsibility to their patients to raise concerns if they see risks to patient safety. And when they do, they should be reassured that the Government stands full square behind them.”
Full square behind them so that he can plunge the knife straight into their backs! The truth about his mismanagement of the NHS is coming out: staff bullied into silence, professionals frozen out, crucial information in the risk register—