Government Contracts: Randox Laboratories

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make a statement on the process for awarding Government contracts to Randox Laboratories Ltd, following the release of documents in response to the Humble Address of 17 November 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)]

In response to the greatest public health emergency that we have faced for a generation, the Government engaged with many businesses—big and small—as part of an unprecedented national effort. On 3 February, we responded to the Humble Address and laid the documents before the House. We are committed to transparency and helping the House perform its valuable scrutiny, and the Department dedicated significant resources to reviewing about 11,000 records to identify the 35 relevant documents. They show how we took every possible step to build the huge infrastructure for testing that we now have in this country—the biggest testing programme in Europe. The programme has done so much to stop the spread of this deadly virus and given us all hope that we can learn to live with covid-19.

Randox has been globally recognised in the diagnostics industry for nearly 40 years and even as early as March 2020 had lab-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19. Robust rules and processes are in place to ensure that all contracts are awarded in line with procurement regulations and transparency guidelines, and that any potential conflicts of interest with respect to commercial matters are appropriately managed. Direct awards, such as in this case, are permitted by public contract regulations for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events. I am sure that no hon. Member would deny that the situation was one of extreme urgency.

As the House would expect, Ministers of course have a role in approving contracts, but their approval relies on the impartial evaluation conducted by civil servants. I reinforce to hon. Members that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts, and that the documents given to the House show no evidence that any of those principles have been breached. Instead, they plainly show that we did everything in our power to keep this country safe at a time of crisis, as the British people would expect.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Randox files published last week, later than the Government said they would be—that was not acknowledged by the Minister—paint a picture of a Conservative Government who are simply unfit for office. That Conservative Government played fast and loose with public money. They handed Randox a £133 million contract without competition. The Minister talked about every possible step being taken in testing infrastructure, but let us remember what happened. Randox tried to requisition equipment from universities that, because of the files that were released, we now know had to be stopped. Vital tests in care homes were voided, and 750,000 tests were recalled. The Government’s response was to hand it a second contract worth £350 million, again without competition.

We now know that both the civil service chief operating officer and the Minister, Lord Agnew, sounded a warning alarm. That Minister said that the Department was paying “dramatically over the odds” for Randox’s services, but the Government ploughed on. Why was he ignored, and did the Department do what he asked, and introduce a competitive tender process by March 2021? There does not seem to have been the operation of robust rules that the Minister referred to, or an impartial evaluation. Was that put into place or not?

Secondly, there are still no minutes of that crucial meeting on 9 April, just a rough draft email sent seven months later. Two years on, the Department cannot even explain who was there. We now know that Health Ministers held another four meetings that were never declared in the Register. How many more secret meetings were there?

That brings us to Owen Paterson who, as we now know from these papers, is called “O-Patz”—really, Mr Speaker, is there any clearer sign that we are in the twilight days of this Government? The files show that this former MP, a paid advocate for Randox, was arranging meetings with the Health Secretary in the Division Lobby, a place to which only MPs have access, and where it is impossible for civil servants to join them—hardly the appropriate management of commercial interests that the Minister referred to. Will she explain what was agreed in those discussions, and will she correct her Department’s claim that there is no evidence of any breach of the rules?

[Maggie Throup]

I make no apologies for how we as a country rose to the challenge that we faced in early 2020. I think that sometimes we forget what this country—indeed, the world—was going through. We must remember those days, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that what we have put in place since will ensure that we can cope far better in the future. We do need to learn lessons, and we will learn lessons.

However, one of the most important lessons that I take from when we worked together is that we can do incredible things. The NHS has been phenomenal, our hospitals have been phenomenal, and local government has been phenomenal, as has the private sector. We have all worked together and we have really worked hard, and that is why we can now see that—with the vaccine programme as well, along with the therapeutics and antivirals—we are combating this virus. We could not have come this far without everybody working together, and this country’s testing structure has been crucial in helping us to get through this time. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has been involved in this huge effort both at testing sites and working in the lab, and everybody who has come forward to get tested to keep their loved ones safe.

I would like to respond to some of the questions posed by the hon. Lady. My Department did inform you, Mr Speaker, that we were unable to meet our initial deadline for responding to the Humble Address. That was mainly due to the surge of omicron at that time, and the way that my Department had to respond to ensure that we kept our citizens safe from that variant surge.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Randox kits that were recalled in the summer of 2020. It was on 15 July that year that NHS Test and Trace was notified that some kits produced by Randox laboratories may not have met the required standard for coronavirus testing. As a precautionary measure, while this was investigated further, NHS Test and Trace paused the use of these Randox test kits with immediate effect. It was on 7 August that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed Randox to recall the Randox covid-19 home testing kits with a specific catalogue number. That decision was taken as a precautionary measure to prevent any further use of these Randox tests. The risk to safety was low, and test results from Randox kits were not affected. An independent assessment in June 2020 had placed Randox ahead of other laboratories, and Randox was meeting its delivery targets by September 2020. We were very precautionary in the measures we put in place to ensure that we were protecting everybody at that time.

I did note the point of order that the hon Lady made this week about the meeting on 9 April 2020, which she has raised again today. The note was taken during the meeting, and it was saved in a draft folder of the private secretary who took the note. When the Department received a freedom of information request for the minute of the meeting, the private secretary found the minute and shared it. For clarity, “note” and “minute” mean an official record of a meeting; the words mean the same from that point of view.

I reiterate that there are robust rules and processes in place that ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with the public procurement regulations of 2015, and that Ministers are not involved in the assessment and evaluation process for contracts at all. That is a really important principle that the Government work on now, and have worked on probably for decades, and that principle will never be broken.

Points of Order

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 17 November 2021, the House approved a humble address motion compelling the Government to publish the minutes from or any notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) received an answer to a written parliamentary question that explained that the Department of Health and Social Care had previously released the minutes of the meeting, referring to an attached document containing some heavily redacted notes. But when that very same document was made public in response to a freedom of information request in January 2021, it was with the explicit caveat that they were “draft notes” and that official minutes were not taken and sent to attendees. The Government appear to being arguing with themselves, and not for the first time. Can you offer some assistance to explain whether it is in order for the Health Secretary to describe documents as “minutes” that his own Department has previously denied are minutes? If not, will he be afforded an opportunity to correct the record, explain what status those draft notes have and inform the House once and for all what happened to the formal minutes taken at that crucial meeting?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know if the Secretary of State wants to respond—

Randox Covid Contracts

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a vital moment for everyone who cares about democracy, transparency, stemming the waste and abuse of public money and improving the way that our country responds to future crises. I find it extraordinary that, on a matter of such national significance, there was not a single Conservative Member on the list to speak during this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) damningly stated, this was the worst such situation that he had seen since he came into Parliament in 1979, when I was at the very tender age of just one year old.

Let us recall the reasons why we are here today. Randox paid Owen Paterson over £8,000 a month to lobby on its behalf. Mr Paterson then sat in on a call between Randox and Lord Bethell, the Health Minister responsible for handing out Government contracts, and Randox landed Government contracts worth more than half a billion pounds without any kind of proper tender process. There was no competition, just deals done behind closed doors, with discussions between a Government Minister, a Conservative MP and the company paying him handsomely to hawk its wares around the corridors of power. That tells us everything we need to know about how this Conservative Government go about their business.

But the situation with Randox is even more disturbing because of what happened next, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) set out very ably. After pocketing £133 million of public money to carry out covid testing, Randox failed to deliver, so in the middle of an unprecedented national crisis, we witnessed an unedifying spectacle: the Health Secretary sending the begging bowl around our universities asking to borrow equipment, just so Randox could deliver what it promised.

I echo what so many Opposition Members have said: the Minister has a very positive reputation on this side of the House, but my word, she has been given a hospital pass today. I regret that the hole in which she was placed has become larger, rather than smaller, during this debate.

[Dawn Butler]

There was a point about Randox that I neglected to mention. Is it not true that it failed to meet every single target that it was set, and yet, it was still awarded another contract six months later? That is unbelievable.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Many thanks to my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right that we have seen failure upon failure upon failure to meet the targets that were set, as she knows very well from her experience in this place and her focus on health matters. I find it extraordinary that the process of the Health Secretary having to call on others so that Randox could deliver what it had promised was described as an example of the “triple helix”. I remember those days very well. I remember academics begging the Government to come to them because they said that they could deliver the testing that our country needed. Were they listened to? We all know what happened: they were not listened to—they were ignored when our country needed that testing. This was an example not of collaboration, but of outsourcing that failed spectacularly on the Conservatives’ watch.

[Tony Lloyd]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the real questions relates to the fact that the Minister told us that those involved in procurement were not constrained whatever by Government and Ministers’ actions. I know not whether that is absolutely accurate or not—we have to find out—but, in any case, did not the procurement process fail at precisely the point at which there was no examination of Randox’s capacity to deliver what it said it would? That is not clever procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the concrete impact of these failures and that procurement system. I will come to those matters, which he detailed very ably in the important speech he made a few minutes ago.

Again, the Minister maintained that all details of contracts are published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) set out, the Conservative Government were taken to court and found to have acted unlawfully because of their determination not to provide transparency over contracts. There is, again, a rewriting of history. What else did we see at that time? We saw the Conservative Government paying airlines to fly kits out to Randox’s laboratory in Northern Ireland for them to be analysed. We saw the Health Secretary warning people not to use Randox testing kits because they were “not up to standard”. In the end, Randox had to recall 750,000 tests because they were not good enough, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) rightly explained. It threw away more than 12,000 swabs in a single day because they had to be voided.

The Minister said that we should “pause and reflect” on what happened. Many of us have been pausing and reflecting, and we have been remembering what happened. Let us cast our minds back to the beginning of the pandemic. We remember when our country faced that nationwide testing shortage as the devastation of covid ripped through our communities. We remember when people were scared, when they were sick, when they were dying. We remember when, in Plymouth, people were told that their nearest testing centre was in Inverness. We remember when, in Bolton, at the epicentre of the pandemic, people could not access any testing at all. We remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) set out devastatingly, when care homes could not access the testing that they needed for elderly and vulnerable people. We remember the impact that that had.

The stakes could not have been higher. Lives depended on the Government securing the best possible testing contract. Almost 40,000 people died in care homes in the year after Owen Paterson’s phone call with Lord Bethell and Randox—care homes that took in people from hospital who had not been tested at all, and care homes whose own staff and residents could not access the tests that they needed until nearly two months after the national lockdown began, by which point it was too late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, we have to know whether this contracting played a role in those awful, awful outcomes.

How did the Government respond to their abject failures to deliver? Did they learn the lessons when new contracts came up, such as a contract for testing twice as lucrative as the previous one? Of course not. They doubled down—and Randox doubled up with a brand-new deal. Again, there was no competition; again, it was behind closed doors. Another £350 million of public money was dropped in the lap of a firm that just so happened to have a Conservative MP and former Secretary of State on its payroll.

The Minister has attempted to dispute that course of events. I say to her: prove it. Publish every dot and comma related to those deals: every email, every message, every letter between Ministers, special advisers and MPs. Explain why Lord Bethell’s WhatsApp messages have been lost as part of the sorry saga that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne detailed, which is the 21st-century equivalent of “the dog ate my homework.” Come on! It is ridiculous.

Will the Minister please explain what on earth is going on with the minutes of the phone call with Lord Bethell and Paterson? We seem to have had mixed messages during the debate. At one point, it seemed that it was being suggested that there were no minutes—they never existed. That, in and of itself, raises extremely important questions. Were there no minutes of a meeting relating to two contracts worth £500 million of taxpayers’ money? It was then suggested, “Oh, it’s not that we necessarily know that there were no minutes, or that they were destroyed. No, we are unable to locate those minutes.” Well, when will they be located? They need to be located.

If the Department of Health and Social Care has been unable to locate the minutes, why has it been stating that it is not able to respond in a timely manner to freedom of information requests about the matter, without stating that that was because it believes that the minutes might not exist, that it has been unable to locate them, or whatever? Instead, it has just said that it is trying to respond to those FOIs. My goodness, what a mess.

Will the Minister explain how many other meetings might not have been minuted? How many other meetings might have minutes, but nobody knows where? When will we see them? Will she explain why the Government are so resistant to letting sunlight be the disinfectant that it needs to be in this process? As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said: just publish them.

We are talking today about one specific contract, but we all know that the problem does not begin and end with Randox. This is a Government who rolled out the red carpet for many more companies with close links to senior Conservatives. Just yesterday we learned that, of the 47 firms that won contracts via the so-called VIP lane that so many Opposition Members have referred to, four were helped by a former Conservative chair, four by the former Health Secretary and one by Dominic Cummings. I regret the fact that the Minister has stated that

“Ministers have no role…in the procurement process”.

That was not the case with the VIP lane, was it? We know that now, in black and white. The Minister has the opportunity to intervene if Ministers played no role in that VIP lane. She cannot intervene, because she knows that Ministers, including her Health Secretary, were recommending those companies.

[Gillian Keegan]

I thank the hon. Lady for the opportunity to intervene. I think the difference is that the VIP lane is about the identification of potential sources of supply. The procurement process starts after that; that is when procurement professionals, who are highly regulated, take over.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is obviously doing her very best, but yet again, I am afraid that this is not an edifying spectacle. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the recommendation led to companies receiving enormously expensive contracts. It is risible to suggest anything less. It is also risible to suggest that in those cases the Government followed their own emergency procurement guidance:

“Contracting authorities should maintain documentation on how they have considered and managed potential conflicts of interest in the procurement process…Particular attention should be taken to ensure…decisions are being made on the basis of relevant considerations and”—

wait for it—

“not personal recommendations.”

There was nothing inevitable about this. I know how things ran in Labour-run Wales, and they did not run like this.

We have seen that companies with links to the Conservative party were 10 times more likely to secure a contract than others. Public money was doled out based not on a company’s abilities but on its contacts book. When it comes to spending taxpayers’ money on testing and PPE equipment that can save lives, one would hope that the Government would take things more seriously, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, the switch into an emergency process provides no justification for the ransacking of public money we have seen. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, an emergency situation was not a reason for having no process at all. In practice, there should have been more sensitivity around the process, not less.

Because of the Government’s approach, British businesses that did not have Tory MPs on speed dial missed out.

[Karl Turner]

I know that the Minister has not managed to answer the question that I posed earlier, but Arco, in the city of Hull, had existed for 135 years, had provided top-quality products to the NHS since its very inception, and could not get on the VIP lane. Why was it blocked?

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier in the debate, he detailed that sorry tale in devastating manner, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). Arco had existed for 135 years, providing essential material. It was completely ignored, yet Ayanda Capital, for example—an investment firm with no PPE experience —ended up being used by the Government to purchase 50 million masks that were not even usable.

There were other companies that missed out. Multibrands International, based in Bradford, had been providing PPE to the Chinese Government since the end of 2019. It spent months trying to offer those services to the UK Government, but got absolutely nowhere. What did the Government do instead? They bought 400,000 protective gowns from Turkey that were unusable.

That is the way it always seems to be with the Conservative party: one rule for the Conservatives and their friends, another rule for everyone else—and it is the British people who pay the price. This Conservative Government are doing their best to suggest that every politician was engaged in graft. They are trying to drag everyone else down to their level and feed a growing disillusionment with our politics that damages us all. But Labour Members know that that is not true; I suspect that a fair few Conservative Members know it, too.

The people of Britain know when they are being taken for fools. When a party found guilty of breaking the rules tries to remake them to protect one of its own, there is a word for that: corruption. That is what this Prime Minister has brought into the heart of our politics, and the British people will not tolerate it. That is why the Prime Minister panicked last week and U-turned: because he knew that he had been rumbled.

We all have to play by the same rules, whatever the Prime Minister thinks. Labour has been clear that if we were in power, things would change. We would ban dodgy second jobs like those of the former Member for North Shropshire—and I mean a proper ban, not the watered-down cop-out that the Prime Minister is trying to lay down this afternoon. We would close the revolving door and ban Ministers from lobbying for at least five years after they leave office. We would stop Conservative plans to allow foreign money to flow into our politics, and ban the use of shell companies to hide the source of donations. We would create a new office for value for money and reform procurement rules to put an end to the industrial-scale wasting of public money, and we would create a new, genuinely independent integrity and ethics commission to restore the standards in public life that have been trashed by this Government.

This scandal has presented a clear choice about the kind of politics we want for our country. Do we want Boris Johnson’s politics of the gutter, or Keir Starmer’s politics of decency and integrity? Conservative Members have a choice today as well. They can abstain, under orders from the Prime Minister, their Chief Whip and the Leader of the House; or they can decide to make a stand. They can decide that they want to have a vote on this because they want to take a better path. Let us be very clear about the message that abstention is going to send. We have heard weasel words during this debate, and it seems clear that the scope of what the Government are proposing today, in terms of what they are willing to release, is far less than what Labour’s motion requires.

I see the Minister shaking her head. I sincerely hope that she has got that correct, because, having listened to what she said and compared it with what is written in the Labour motion, I think that there is far less that this Government are prepared to reveal.

[Gillian Keegan]

I said that we would advise on the scope, and, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, it could be discussed. I have not yet commented on the scope because I do not yet have the details.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I hoped that the Minister might say at this stage, “Yes, absolutely—we will follow what Labour has called for. We will make sure that those documents are published; we will make sure that the minutes of meetings are set out.” Instead, she seems to have muddied the waters. I do not mean to be unfair to her, but that is what her response has done for me.

[Gillian Keegan]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

I shall be happy if the Minister can clarify that.

[Gillian Keegan]

I do not want to appear to muddy the waters by not saying what the scope is. What we have said is that we will publish the documents and place them in the House Library. I am sure that the scope will be as broad as would be expected, to satisfy the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

Of course, the way to guarantee that the scope will have the breadth that is required would be to have the binding vote in the House of Commons for which Labour is calling right now.

As the Minister knows, we have been here before, with promises being made about what the Government will be transparent about and what, in practice, they are willing to deliver, which far too often is far, far less. We have the chance now to move beyond that cover-up, and instead have the clean-up to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred. We have the chance to make amends. The Government have the chance. They can also immediately accept all outstanding freedom of information requests in relation to all PPE and testing contracts, and they can publish all documents and correspondence relating to the £3.5 billion-worth of contracts that have gone to Tory donors and Tory-linked companies.

Let us make that choice now: let us clear this up once and for all.

The National Health Service

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I will give way in a few moments. Let me just finish this point.

When the Secretary of State announces new hospitals in press releases from Conservative campaign headquarters, he should also announce where he is downgrading hospitals. He should go to Telford and explain why the accident and emergency department there is closing and being replaced by an “A&E local”, which is presumably something like a Tesco Express. We would save that A&E department. The Secretary of State went to Chorley recently. The A&E department there is not open overnight. We would provide a rescue package for Chorley. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will also be visiting Canterbury to apologise, because the Prime Minister promised—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I would love to. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work not only on the prevention agenda and public health in government, but on ensuring that the long-term plan approach to capital investment, with a new hospital in Winchester over the next decade, will give the time to ensure that that investment brings the whole health system together in Winchester and really delivers for the people. With him as the local representative, I have absolutely no doubt that that is what will happen.

[Anneliese Dodds]

On the subject of strategic capital investments, the Secretary of State will be well aware that static PET-CT cancer scanning equipment is world renowned for helping people, particularly at the Churchill Hospital, and is much more effective than mobile scanning technology. Why, therefore, have I discovered, having been told that there would be no privatisation of services at the Churchill and that we would not see that material change, that a private provider with mobile scanning equipment will be the back-up to the NHS service? It will be dealing with complex cases from across the Thames valley. Even worse, the chief exec of the local hospital has had to accept a non-disclosure arrangement around the contract negotiations. How can the Secretary of State justify that?

[Matt Hancock]

That is a decision taken by the local NHS. The proposals that we are putting forward in law, for debate under this Queen’s Speech, are to change the regulations. We must absolutely get the best solutions for local patients, and I will address the hon. Lady’s point before taking some more interventions, because I want to refer specifically to the amendment tabled in the name of Opposition Members. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is counterproductive. It would do the opposite of what they say that they intend.

The Government believe—I think this is true across the House—in a publicly funded NHS that is free at the point of use according to need, not ability to pay. The Opposition say that they want a publicly provided NHS. I think what matters is what delivers best for patients, and let us look at this point of—

NHS Pensions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) on securing this important debate, and I underline the fact that I am a shadow Treasury Minister responding on behalf of the Opposition.

We are here today to discuss the impact of changes to allowances on tax relief on pensions specifically in regard to NHS pensions. As people in this Chamber will know, in 2016-17, an estimated £38.6 billion in tax relief was provided on contributions to approved pension schemes; obviously that is the overall figure and does not cover just those who work for the NHS. It is a very substantial amount of relief.

As I am sure Members will also know, the last Labour Government introduced the annual allowance and lifetime allowance back in 2006. The annual allowance was initially set at £215,000 and the lifetime allowance at £1.5 million. Since then, as other Members have discussed, we have seen gradual reductions. Under the coalition Government and the Conservative Government, the lifetime allowance was reduced from £1.8 million to £1.5 million in April 2012, then to £1.25 million in 2014, and to £1 million in April 2016. It has actually floated up a little bit with inflation up to 2019-20, when it will be—as has been mentioned—£1,055,000. There has been a similar trend with the annual allowance, which was reduced from £255,000 to £50,000 in April 2011 and it then went right down to £40,000 in 2014.

Of course, the particular changes that we have focused on today are around the interaction of all of these measures with the taper, which George Osborne introduced in the summer Budget of 2015. From April 2016, the annual allowance would be tapered at a rate of £1 for every £2 of taxable income, including pension benefits and not subtracting employee pension contributions, received over £150,000 in adjusted income, going right down to £10,000 for those with an income of more than £210,000. As has also been mentioned, that final change affects those people whose pay is more than £110,000 a year, excluding pension benefits and employee pension contributions, and who see an increase in their pension benefits of more than £40,000 in a given year.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) said, and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) underlined, all that obviously amounts to a considerable number of changes in a very short time. So we have seen the tax treatment of pensions for all high-paid workers changing very substantially, indeed in a way that they probably could not have envisaged when they first joined their pension scheme. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was right to indicate the parallels between this situation and what has happened to several other groups of taxpayers.

I see that the Minister is kindly scribbling things down at the moment. I hope that he will pass on to his Treasury colleagues that it is simply unacceptable if, at the very least, these taxpayers do not receive adequate information about what their liabilities will be. I was deeply concerned to hear from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that, for example, people are not receiving their pension statements. Surely that is the very minimum that is required.

On principle, it is surely necessary for the pension allowance to decline gradually for those people who earn very high incomes. It is fair, and consistent with other core principles of our tax system, that tax charge exemptions should be reduced for people who have very high incomes. However, there is of course the issue about the interaction of that system with other pension schemes, especially the NHS pension scheme, and given the fact that we have a very tight labour market for those in the NHS with substantial expertise. As has been mentioned, about 30% of doctors earn £110,000 or more, and nearly 10% earn more than £150,000. Clearly, this group of staff are the people who have the necessary expertise, as has also been mentioned a number of times.

I am aware of course that official representations have been made on this issue. We have heard what has been stated by the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association, and I think that the polling to which the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) referred was very interesting in that regard. It was also helpful to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) about the impression that he received from his local NHS trust about what is going on.

When we consider this issue, it is very important that we do not just talk about tax treatment; we must also consider how it inter-relates with what is a very complex NHS pension scheme, one that, as I understand it, was not fully consulted on with representative organisations when it was introduced.

As has been mentioned, we now have three different schemes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West indicated how working out how these schemes relate to each other and how that will impact on tax outcomes is very difficult for individuals. As the hon. Member for Poole rightly said, the impact of these changes—related to this combined test of both the threshold and the annual income, plus the taper—makes it very difficult for individuals to work out what their liability is without any kind of professional help. Of course, that professional help is also expensive.

We need to look at NHS pensions, and I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to take that issue away and discuss it with his Treasury colleagues. However, I will just say to those in this Chamber that, as well as talking about the problems for high-paid NHS staff, we of course also need to look at the issues for low-paid NHS staff. The pension situation is quite concerning for them. The annual report on retirement by Scottish Widows indicated that overall one in five young people are saving nothing for their later life, and many of those people who are working in our NHS on low pay have opted out of pension schemes, because they feel that they need the cash now to make sure that they can make ends meet.

A freedom of information inquiry in 2018 found that more than 245,000 workers from across the NHS in England had opted out of the NHS pension scheme in the previous three years. A lot of those were low-paid workers, so that is enormously concerning. Although I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Winchester said, I do not agree with him that the levels of resource currently being considered by his Government will be adequate in the future.

Let us consider the current situation. We obviously have the cumulative impact of the pay cap over many years. The Government finally saw sense on that, but it took them a long time to do so. There are also groaning waiting lists, extended waits for accident and emergency, and the rationing of NHS services, with many procedures no longer being offered by the NHS. Until we see a change in that situation, it will be difficult for many of us to argue that the NHS is heading in the right direction resource-wise.

I know that the Government have made a commitment to improve funding in the future, but the Opposition continue to believe that that commitment is not sufficient.

[Steve Brine]

My point was that the NHS long-term plan has been significantly funded, with record funding, which, for the record—seeing as the hon. Lady has gone there—is significantly more than was promised by the Opposition. Yes, other resources will be required, around public health for instance, and around the people plan, but perhaps the hon. Lady can tell us what Labour’s fiscal promise is to the NHS, and how it will be paid for.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Absolutely. I am grateful to the—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Obviously, in the context of the debate.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Great. I will keep it within the context of the debate as much as possible, because in fact this debate is around taxation—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady will not keep it within the context of the debate “as much as possible”; she will keep it within the context of the debate.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I certainly will, Mr Gray. Thank you.

As I was saying, this debate is broadly around the contours of the taxation system and how they affect high-paid workers in particular. I am sure that the hon. Member for Winchester is aware that Labour has a different approach from that of the current Government around progressive taxation. We set out our proposals at the last general education: we indicated how, by increasing the tax paid by the very best-paid workers, we would free up the resources that are necessary. I am sure that he has seen what Labour produced in that regard—in particular, we would not pay for the boost in spending that the NHS needs only through a short-term windfall, which in practice is what the Chancellor did, because all the commitments that the Government made to the NHS were as a result of lower than projected spending and higher than projected taxation receipts.

That is not a sustainable way to fund our NHS in the long run. Instead, we should look at the longer-term measures that are necessary, which is exactly what we have been doing.

We need to ensure that NHS workers on lower incomes can save properly for retirement, but we also need to look at the situation that has been the focus of today’s debate. We need to focus on the changes that were made in the 2015 pension scheme, and how they interact with the variety of alterations that have been made to tax release. It is especially important to do so in the context of staff retention, and I understand the comments that Members have made about that topic. We have a particular problem with NHS staff leaving their jobs early, which in my experience is not merely because of these issues, although of course they are important. When I talk to senior staff in the NHS, they also mention stress, a general lack of resource, having to deal with short-term changes such as operating theatres being closed because of a lack of staff, and so on. A whole variety of features is driving those retention problems.

[Dr Whitford]

I accept that there are many other issues, and obviously all four UK health systems are stretched because workforce is their No. 1 issue, but this problem comes on top of that. People who feel stretched—people who feel they have a terrible work-life balance, who are working late and so on—suddenly find that the extra sessions they do are costing them money. That is a final slap in the face.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am aware of that; for many, this issue can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, especially when it is not anticipated.

I hope that the Government will look carefully at the impact of threshold effects, particularly cliff edges that lead to radical changes in the amount of tax paid, which is a significant problem with the UK tax system generally. The situation for incurring VAT is analogous to this one: small businesses are deliberately staying below the threshold because as soon as they go over it, they have to start paying VAT—not necessarily at a very high rate, but with all the bureaucracy and so on that comes with it. This situation is very similar: there is that cliff edge, where tax treatment suddenly becomes very different from what it was before.

In the long run, Government should aspire to learn from the best of what happens in other countries that have a more granular approach; where income is more tightly tied— and sometimes entirely tied—to tax treatment, so that as one’s income goes up, tax liability goes up stepwise. That seems a very sensible approach, but of course, getting there is a long-term aspiration. In the short term, I hope that the Minister—who I know is an open-minded person—will ask his Treasury colleagues to sit down with the experts and representative organisations, and talk to them about how these problems arise because of the interaction of the complex pension system with the complex treatment of tax release, so that there can be some kind of short-term fix with a view to, in the long term, having a much more rational approach to tax release on pension contributions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right: every exception report has to be addressed. Changing the rota is one possible outcome. He will recognise that there are other possible outcomes as well: the doctor may agree to work extra hours and be given extra time off; timing of the ward rounds in clinics may be adjusted, so that educational opportunities can be taken: and timing of the ward rounds can be adjusted so that support from other senior staff can be there as well. There are many ways around this.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. For what reason he chose not to refer the Thames Valley PET-CT scanning contract to the independent reconfiguration panel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)]

I am aware of the views that have been expressed on this matter. I can confirm that, having taken advice, we considered that the letter received from the Oxfordshire health overview and scrutiny committee does not constitute a valid referral under the relevant regulations. However, I have emphasised to NHS England, Oxford University Hospitals and InHealth the importance of continuing local discussions and working together at pace to find a service offer that works best for patients.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Churchill’s PET-CT cancer scanning service is world renowned, yet NHS England, apparently with the consent of this Government, is forcing it into partnership with a private company. That is what is happening. It is not a discussion; it is being forced into a partnership. NHS England has even warned the trust against staff raising their voice on this issue because of their concerns about patient safety. Surely this unprecedented partnership is illegitimate and must be called in by this Government.

[Seema Kennedy]

As I have said to the hon. Lady, we do not consider it to be a valid referral. What I would say is that NHS England remains committed to ensuring that the public are involved in decision making. Part of the extensive public engagement included completing a 30-day engagement about the phase 2 procurement proposals in 2016. I understand the strong passions that this has raised on both sides of the House and I urge all parties to continue working together.

Cystic Fibrosis Drugs: Orkambi

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman has absolutely nailed it. That is very much the point. This is about human beings, and we are dangling something in front of them that they just cannot access. The fact that people go off to Argentina and spend their own money to get the drug is ridiculous. That is a really important point.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Paul Scully]

I will make two more points about mental health, and then I will let someone else intervene.

As I said earlier, Oli Rayner said that he effectively spent 10 years preparing to die. He even cold-called a vicar to plan his own funeral. He is now 43 and has a relatively clean bill of health after having a lung transplant. It is outrageous that he had to do that.

I want to raise with the Minister the case of Carlie Pleasant, who ironically works for the NHS. She has CF and has had to go to the hospital a number of times. Her HR manager has told her that she has had too many days off sick, and that she has reached the trigger point. Basically, she has been told that she may be able to make up for it if she is not off for the next couple of months. She has a husband and a young child, she is running a home and she is trying to keep her job and pay her mortgage. How much pressure does that put on her mental health?

There must be thousands of sufferers in a similar situation across the country. We are talking about a life-saving, quality-of-life drug. When we, and especially the Government, try to ensure parity of esteem between mental and physical health, we must all ensure that that balance is reflected not just by treatments but by everybody in the health system and every employer.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very persuasive case, and it is obviously supported by many of us. Returning briefly to his point about buyers’ clubs, he will be aware that many sufferers and their families have already made significant financial contributions to CF research. The Oxford group, made up mainly of parents and grandparents of people with CF, has raised more than £174,000 for research just since 2003. They are obviously very upset at the current impasse, as they have made that contribution and they now feel that they have to do it again through buyers’ groups. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is totally unacceptable?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady is right. The fact that people have to resort to such things is ridiculous given that we have a comprehensive health system. It is about time Vertex recognised that there is plenty of time for it to make a reasonable profit on its drugs portfolio. It is not helping the situation. There are a number of people from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in the Public Gallery, but unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) said, many sufferers cannot be here because of the danger of cross-infection. They are hopefully watching the debate on television or on their computers.

Learning Disabilities Mortality Review

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

I do not think I could have said it any better than my right hon. Friend. Mencap has put out a fantastic tweet featuring a particularly special young man who has Down’s syndrome. He is incredibly brilliant in the way that he articulates how very proud he is to live with Down’s syndrome and to be just as useful, just as important and just as special as everybody else, and how that makes him just as much a valued member of society as others—in fact probably more so.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is six years since Connor Sparrowhawk died, yet these leaks—yes, leaks—indicate that 8% of the cases reviewed showed that people with learning disabilities had been harmed or even killed by the care that they received. What was meant to be helping them was actually harming them. That raises enormous questions, of course, about all the cases that have not been reviewed. The Minister said that action is being taken to deal with the backlog, but she knows that it is enormous. She must also know that the time that elapses after a death really counts for the amount of learning and the amount of change that will follow. Will she tell us exactly what she is doing to speed up the review of these cases, as it is just so important?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the case of Connor Sparrowhawk, which was an absolutely tragic lack of care. I have met his mum, Dr Sara Ryan, and I greatly value her feedback on how we move forward with the LeDeR programme, because she has such an important insight into the matter. As I have said, NHS England is putting in additional funding to clear the backlog, and the NHS planning guidance for 2019-20 is very clear that clinical commissioning groups must have robust plans in place to make sure that LeDeR reviews are undertaken within six months of a notification of death in their local area. The resources are going in and the guidelines are there to ensure that that happens.

Integrated Care Regulations

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

That is absolutely right. Notwithstanding the sincere views of the Select Committee, there is a lack of confidence out in the country about the way in which these commercial contracting arrangements work. We are seeing that in Bristol, as my hon. Friend so eloquently outlined. Despite the blasé attitude of the Secretary of State in the Select Committee, this is the same Secretary of State who has sat back and done nothing while a PET-CT cancer scanning contract in Oxford is privatised, leading to a fragmented service putting patient safety at risk.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know my hon. Friend has been working very hard on this issue. I have had droves of patients and staff contacting me with their concern about what is happening. They are astonished that this privatisation is continuing given the comments made by the Secretary of State. There seems to be no willingness at all for any challenge to NHS England’s decision, which is going above the heads of those who deliver the care and which, as my hon. Friend says, would threaten its quality and safety.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

We keep being told by Ministers, by those who are favour of integrated care and by various interested stakeholders that Labour Members are scaremongering and that we have nothing to worry about—that it is all going to be fine and all going to be in the public sector—yet at the same time we are seeing controversial privatisation after privatisation all across the country, of which the one in Oxford is just the latest example. This has happened since the Secretary of State went to the Select Committee and said that there would be no privatisation on his watch.

In south-east London, private companies are in a three-way fight for the biggest-ever NHS pathology contract—a £2.2 billion contract for 10 years. If the Secretary of State was sincere in his commitment to no privatisation on his watch, he would bring forward legislation to ensure that ICPs are statutory public bodies that are publicly accountable. He would first take the advice of the NHS itself, as embodied in the long-term plan and the subsequent proposals for legislative change, and rid our NHS of the morass of competition law and economic regulation that was brought in by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Everyone agrees that this particular aberration has had its time.

While the NHS proposals do not yet go as far as Labour Members would want and would not resolve all the problems of the internal market and private sector involvement that our NHS struggles with, they would remove the default assumption for competitive tendering that would currently make many ICSs feel obliged to put contracts for ICPs out to tender for fear of falling foul of the competition rules. Overall, they provide a far preferable base from which to pursue integrated care than the maze of contradictions and obstacles that Andrew Lansley’s Act forced on them. Rather than this regulated change, why is the Minister not bringing forward the legislation that NHS England has called for?

I have two other quick points for the Minister. The new secondary legislation seeks to substantially change the regulations underpinning the existing contractual arrangements for the provision of NHS GP services. We should remember that general practice is already hard to recruit for and we are already losing GP numbers, yet the proposal to incorporate GP practices into ICPs appears to cut across the idea of GPs beginning to work in wider networks covering 30,000 to 50,000 patients, retaining their GP contracts but sharing common resources. That was highlighted as a direction of travel to be celebrated by the Prime Minister when launching the long-term plan.

GP practices can already network and collaborate without this new contract. The contract will offer a sweetener to GPs of new money if a GP practice signs up to the new contract, but the proposals have been opposed by the BMA. Dr Richard Vautrey has said:

“We have repeatedly expressed our serious concerns about ICP contracts which leads to practices giving up part or all of their General Medical Services contract as a result. Practices should not feel pressured into entering an ICP contract as to do so could leave their patients worse off.”

Perhaps the Minister can explain why he is correct and Dr Vautrey is wrong.

I want to make a quick point about the pooling of budgets with respect to universal free-at-the-point-of-use NHS and means-tested social care. If the boundaries between health and social care are dissolved, will the Minister mandate ICPs and clearly specify that which is considered healthcare and that which is considered social care? I raise that because we are already seeing CCGs across the country cutting back on their responsibilities to provide continuing healthcare for some of the most vulnerable people. Can he guarantee that some services currently provided free on the NHS—whether rehabilitation care or nursing care provided by district nurses, such as wound care or continence care—will not suddenly be designated as social care, so that charging creeps into the system?

NHS 10-Year Plan

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Of course, we were not actually meant to be here at all this week, but it is absolutely right that this debate took place tonight. We need another one and we will very shortly need a debate on the social care Green Paper, when that is published. We also need a debate on what we are going to do about some of the legislative changes that the Government have promised, because all these things need to take place in the public eye.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need a debate on privatisation, given that we are seeing no public consultation on very significant changes, such as what is purported to happen to the PET—positron emission tomography—scan centre at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, causing a huge amount of local concern?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right. The Secretary of State has said on the record that he wants to stop privatisation, but we have identified a number of very important contracts lasting many years and costing millions of pounds that should be halted if the Government are going to stick to their word. It has not happened and it should.

The timetable for the publication of the plan has itself not gone to plan. Again, when the Foreign Secretary was Health Secretary, he said:

“we now intend to publish the social care Green Paper in the autumn around the same time as the NHS plan.”

I am not sure which autumn he was talking about for the social care Green Paper, but the intention was right, because, as he also said:

“It is not possible to have a plan for one sector without…a plan for the other”—[Official Report, 18 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 52.]—

but here we are.

In conclusion, whatever fine words, gimmicks and spin we have in the 10-year plan, we know that the reality is that the NHS is on its knees and that it cannot survive another decade of Tory Government. It is time for Labour to come to the rescue again.