Health and Social Care

Debate between Andy Burnham and Anne Main

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Again, the Secretary of State is quick to lecture about openness and transparency, but a report compiled at huge cost to the public purse by Lord Rose, former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, was not published in the last Parliament even though it was submitted to the Department months before. What possible justification can there be for that? The Secretary of State is avoiding my gaze right now. I would be very interested to hear his answer on why that report was not published, and if he wants to take to his feet now—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that it was not finished. Well, if you believe that, Mr Speaker, you will believe anything. Even though Lord Rose says it was finished, the Secretary of State sent Lord Rose’s homework back and said it was not good enough. People will draw their own conclusions from what we have just heard.

We have seen a staggering deterioration in the NHS finances on the Secretary of State’s watch and a loss of financial grip across the whole system. If we are to see the finances brought under control, it means we will see more of the cuts mentioned a few moments ago.

The warning lurking behind the front page of The Daily Telegraph will not be lost on NHS staff today. The Secretary of State knows the NHS is facing very difficult times and this is an early attempt to shift the blame on to NHS staff. Basically, he is saying, “If things go wrong it’s not my fault, it’s yours because I gave you enough money.” It is the classic style of this Government and this Secretary of State in particular: “Get your blame in on somebody else first.”

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell him that the country rejected Labour’s plan for the NHS. Will he now pledge to support the NHS’s own five-year plan, so that we can make some progress in the debate instead of hurling abuse across the Dispatch Box?

[Andy Burnham]

I must point out to the hon. Lady that Labour had a 20-point lead on the NHS going into the general election, which suggests that the public believed what we were saying about the NHS rather than what the Conservatives were saying. We do support the five-year forward view, and I have said as much, but it needs money now. If that plan is to be made real, it needs investment now. The NHS will not be able to deliver it while it has a £2 billion deficit this year; instead, it will go backwards. It will be unable to make the progress it needs to make.

Let us look at why the grip has been lost. This all goes back to the disastrous decision during the last Parliament to ignore the pleas of patients and staff and to force through the biggest-ever reorganisation in the history of the NHS, which nobody wanted and nobody voted for. Back then, a financially solvent NHS was turned upside down and, just when the service should have been focusing on making savings, it was instead firing and rehiring staff, abolishing and recreating organisations and making front-line nursing staff redundant. That destabilised the NHS, and it has never recovered since.

National Health Service

Debate between Andy Burnham and Anne Main

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. With some reconfigurations there is a clinical case supporting change, such as the changes I introduced in London before the last election to improve stroke services. We reduced the number of centres from 12 to eight. That was a difficult decision for many London Members at the time, but it was the right thing to do because lives are being saved. However, there is a world of difference between those changes and the crude, cost-driven reconfigurations in the NHS that those on the Government Benches said they would not allow.

I spent my weekend reading a very entertaining book entitled “Never Again? The story of the Health and Social Care Act 2012: A study in coalition government and policy making”. It is a very interesting book and offers a new, detailed account, by Nick Timmins, of the Government’s NHS reorganisation—or, as it says on the blurb, the inside story of a “car crash”. I particularly enjoyed the quotation from the Minister of State—I gather that he has not read it, but there he is, up in lights at the very beginning of the book. He made this comment about the then Bill, which the author thought worthy of special attention:

“You cannot encapsulate in one or two sentences the main thrust of this.”

He should know that better than anybody, as he toured more media studios than anybody, and used more sentences than anyone, in a vain attempt to sell the technocratic and dense plans that made sense to his boss and nobody else.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Given that the biggest strain on most health authorities is staff pay, does the right hon. Gentleman regret the fact that Labour doubled the remuneration of GPs, allowing them to opt out and thus putting huge stresses on many health care authorities, which then had to buy in additional services? Does Labour not regret allowing doctors to be paid more for doing less?

[Andy Burnham]

I am interested in the argument that the hon. Lady is beginning to develop, which is that she wants to deliver pay cuts to NHS staff across her constituency. Presumably she wants the same as people in the south-west are getting. Is that what she is calling for? It is an interesting argument, and I would be interested to hear her expand on it later.

Funding and Schools Reform

Debate between Andy Burnham and Anne Main

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

That is not acceptable, nor is it acceptable to chunter and object throughout when many of the points that have been made should be listened to. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) did so much work on the EMA and on lifting young people’s hopes in constituencies such as his.

We must also take into account the changes in child benefit for families with a higher earner because, although they may not be eligible for the EMA, some give the child benefit to the young person in further or higher education, which helps young people get through. The removal of child benefit will further damage staying-on rates.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the EMA. Will he give me some statistical evidence that directly relates improvement in educational attainment to the EMA?

[Andy Burnham]

I am looking through my notes—I do not want to cite the wrong figure. There is evidence that 18,500 young people stayed on at school who would not have done so without that financial support. That means 18,500 young people with the hope of a better life because of the EMA. Why do the Government want to abolish it? I am lost for words.