Health and Care Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this debate to outline the case behind amendments 106 to 109 in my name, and to speak in favour of those in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I am also grateful from the outset for the time that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have afforded me in recent weeks to discuss these matters.

First and foremost, I want to set out that in principle I am opposed to the expansion of the nanny state. I did not get into politics to tell people what they should or should not eat, or businesses how they should go about advertising their products and wares. However, I equally do not doubt for one moment that obesity is a serious health concern for this country. It is a question of the detail and the manner in which we go about tackling it as a country—principally, that we go about it through education and ensuring people are able to make choices for themselves, rather than using blunt tools that I fear will not work. As I highlighted in a Backbench Business debate on the obesity strategy some months ago, the Government’s own research shows that the measures in the Bill will reduce calorie intake among children by only 1.74 calories a day. If that is the outcome, we must seriously question the measures before us.

The amendments in my name, however, seek to rectify an unfairness that will exist if the Government push ahead with these advertising restrictions, which have businesses in my constituency very concerned. For example, farmers such as Morris of Hoggeston, who grow oats, are concerned that within the categories under the HFSS, or high in fat, sugar or salt, measures, products such as porridge and granola, which are hardly the choice of most children—certainly not my children—are in scope. We need to do something to sort that out. Great British broadcasters, both public service and fully commercial, also stand to lose some £200 million a year from the restrictions we have before us.

My amendments are about fundamental fairness, and seek to treat broadcasters the same way as online platforms. In the first place, research shows that children, who these measures are most prominently aimed at, do not watch broadcast television as much as they used to. They look more and more to YouTube, on-demand services and online; I can testify to that from my own home, where my five-year-old much prefers YouTube to watching CBeebies or other children’s television programmes, and I think that is the same for most children. [Interruption.] I am not sure what is causing amusement on the Opposition Benches.

In fact, 95% of viewing of broadcast television before the 9 pm watershed is by adults, not children, and there are already regulations in place during scheduled children’s programming. So I fear the measures in this Bill will not work, and the fundamental unfairness that I spoke of earlier is the manner in which broadcasters will be treated compared with the online platforms.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Given that there is this disparity between the online advertiser and the broadcaster advertiser, and if we are seeking to restrict broadcasting advertisement to children so that they do not become unhealthy, would not the logic follow that we should equally restrict the online advertiser, rather than saying, “Let’s allow more of a free for all because this is more difficult to do for the online”?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he will let me make a little more progress, I think he will find that my amendments seek to put a harsher perspective of this on the online platforms, rather than letting anyone off anything whatsoever. I repeat that my fundamental position is one of opposition to the nanny state and restrictions, but recognising that if the Government are going to push these restrictions forward, we have to have fairness and parity across broadcast and online sectors, otherwise there will be loopholes, things will fall through the cracks and the Government will not achieve their objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Yes. That was a strong theme in Committee that we on the Opposition Benches are very much against; it is likely to be a prominent theme during our discussion of upcoming amendments. Through what we are discussing now, we at least have the chance to put something in the Bill that might improve the public’s health.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend talked about waiting lists. Would he confirm that at the moment approximately 5.6 million people are on the waiting list and that the Government’s own projections are that that figure could rise to 13 million? What in the Bill does my hon. Friend believe can address that extraordinary situation?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Secretary of State must be the first in the history of the NHS who came into that important role saying that he was expecting waiting times to grow to the extent that they are. That is of course pandemic-related, but it also has a reality far beyond this extraordinary last 18 months. There are more than 125 clauses in the Bill and the Government have proposed more new clauses in Committee and on Report, but not one of them will have a meaningful impact on waiting times, so people should be really disquieted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for clarifying that I had not voluntarily added my name to his amendment.

Whenever we talk about such subjects, we hear a lot about the nanny state. As a surgeon working in A&E in general surgery, however, the difference when seatbelts, airbags and speed limits came in was night and day in how much time I spent dealing with people in operating theatres who had been involved in car crashes. Sometimes the state has to take action to protect people’s health and wellbeing.

The Bill focuses largely on reversing some of the most egregious aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which I welcome, but these measures focus on improving public health. There is no question that obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases associated with obesity pose not just a real threat to individual health but a threat that will overwhelm national health services in future. When I looked at the original Bill, however, I was surprised that, apart from the measures around obesity, there was little in the way of public health policy to improve and promote health, and there is also little enough about care.

It is not the national health service that delivers health. I have often said that it would be more appropriate to call it the national illness service, but who would want to work somewhere called that? The NHS spends most of its time catching people when they fall. Health comes from a decent start in life, a warm dry home, enough to eat and a decent education. Those are the things that deliver health, but there is nothing like them in the Bill.

Particularly, and surprisingly, there is nothing in the Bill on reducing harm from tobacco products and alcohol, which is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 to 4, which seek to strengthen the health warnings on all tobacco products; new clauses 7 to 10, which seek to allow regulation of tobacco pricing; and particularly new clause 6, because the use of sweet flavourings to entice children and young people to take up smoking is indefensible.

[Barry Gardiner]

I heartily commend the hon. Lady for her comments. Does she experience in her constituency, as I do in mine, that smoking cessation services are diminishing and becoming less successful? As the tobacco industry concentrates on a core group of existing addicts, it is desperate to move down the age range and encourage new addicts. That is why that element of the new clause is important.

[Dr Whitford]

I agree that new clause 6 is the most important of the new clauses, because tobacco companies are driven to recruit new victims—as I would have to call them, as a doctor—and they are recruiting them from young people.

Public health is devolved, so we have not had the cuts in public health funding that we have unfortunately seen in England since 2016. Therefore, we have not had the cuts to smoking cessation and sexual health services that many local authorities experienced across England when public health moved into local government.

Smoking does not just cause respiratory problems such as chronic obstructive airway disease, but affects all the blood vessels causing peripheral vascular disease, vascular dementia, strokes, heart attacks and many forms of cancer, not just lung cancer. Stopping smoking is the best favour anyone can do themselves, but many people require the very smoking cessation services that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour—I am getting all my neighbours in tonight. She makes a brilliant point: the proposal exacerbates regional inequalities through an unfair tax and is certainly not a plan to fix social care. Hon. Members should look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West has said about what needs to be done to tackle the social care crisis in this country; it is an awful lot more than putting in place a cap that benefits only some people in certain parts of the country.

Not only will the proposal not stop people having to sell their home to pay for their costs, but it will bake in unfairness for a generation. It does nothing for working adults with long-term care needs, who seem to have been completely missed out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said. It is not what was promised, but hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us listen to the experts. Age UK says:

“The change the Government has announced makes the overall scheme a lot less helpful to older people with modest assets than anyone had expected. It waters down Sir Andrew Dilnot’s original proposal to save the Government some money, but at the cost of protecting the finances of older home owners…This feels like completely the wrong policy choice and we are extremely disappointed that the Government has made it”.

The King’s Fund says of people with more modest assets that,

“the Prime Minister’s promise that no one need sell their house to pay for care…doesn’t seem to apply to them.”

Instead, it will only “benefit wealthier people”.

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend referenced the Prime Minister’s statement that nobody would have to sell their house to pay for social care. I know that my hon. Friend would never seek to call the Prime Minister a liar in this Chamber, but does he wonder, as many hon. Members do, why the Bill appears to be turning the Prime Minister’s words into a lie?

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—I think. What I can say here and what I might say outside are not the same, and I do have to finish my speech, so I will leave it there. I am sure that the public will make up their own minds about the veracity or otherwise of comments made by the Prime Minister.

Sir Andrew Dilnot said that the proposals will create a north-south divide, that those with assets of £106,000 will be hardest hit and that anyone with assets under £186,000 will be worse off than under his proposals. According to the Health Foundation, assuming care costs of about £500 a week, those with assets of £150,000 will take a year and a half longer to reach the cap than they would have under the Dilnot proposals, those with assets of £125,000 will take four and a half years longer, and those with assets of under £106,000 will never reach the care cap. Contrary to what the Minister has said, people with assets of £106,000 or less will not benefit from the proposal at all.