BMA (Contract Negotiations)

Debate between Ben Gummer and Helen Jones

Monday 21st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ben Gummer]

I will not give way, because I know the hon. Gentleman has to go, and he intervened enough earlier.

Far from a few minor amendments, as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) suggested, a far greater number of changes needed to be made to the contract.

[Helen Jones]

I am afraid the Minister may be misquoting me. I was giving examples, not suggesting that they were the whole list of things wrong with the contract. When I said there were only a few issues, that was to illustrate that the Government and the BMA are not that far apart in the negotiations. Perhaps the Minister will consider what I actually said.

[Ben Gummer]

I will, and by way of return I hope that the hon. Lady will consider what the Secretary of State has actually said on a number of occasions, which—I am sure completely unintentionally—she misrepresented at numerous points. The hon. Lady said that the existing contract had moments of imperfection—I cannot remember her exact words. However, it had rather more imperfections than that, which is why the BMA recognised many years ago there was a need for significant change, and why the coalition Government entered into negotiations with the BMA early in 2013. The heads of terms were agreed between early 2013 and July 2013. The negotiations began in October 2013 and broke down a year later, with no notice to the Government. The BMA just walked out, and it took some time to explain why. It claimed, generically, that it was to do with patient safety, which was an odd thing to say given that there were doctors negotiating on the management side who were also concerned about patient safety. The negotiations were not rejoined until we involved ACAS in November last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

It is a great shame that we were unable to discuss those final things with the BMA, but as I have just explained, the BMA did not wish to discuss that final portion, even though it had agreed to do so in the heads of terms that were in front of ACAS at the end of November 2015. It was impossible to have that final discussion. That was not of the Secretary of State’s volition; it was a decision of the BMA’s junior doctors committee.

I turn to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood made, which Opposition Members discounted so quickly. At no point has the Secretary of State ever claimed that there is militancy among junior doctors as a whole, nor has he said that the BMA as a body has sought to wind up the dispute. In fact, if he had said that, it would have been entirely wrong. It is, however, true that the junior doctors committee, which is a small portion of the BMA—it is not the whole body, and we have just come to an agreement with the BMA on the general practitioners’ contract—has become radicalised in the past few years.

We know that the committee did not wish to discuss Saturday pay rates, not because of any inherent merit or otherwise in the arguments but because of the tantalisingly close prospect of an agreement with the Secretary of State—one that the committee had been fighting against. We know that that dispute existed, because even when we made a revised offer just after Christmas, the committee refused to discuss it before talking to its members and committing to a strike. There has been an impelling force within the junior doctors committee to take action, which, I am afraid, has disrupted the course of the negotiations and made it far harder to have an open and honest discussion with junior doctors.

We come to the issue of junior doctors being misled. They are very bright people who I know take an interest in the news and in the contract under which they will be working. I have no doubt about that. However, the British Medical Association—a trusted body—has claimed to its members that they are going to have a pay cut of 20% or 30%. Despite the fact that the NHS and we in this House have rejected that claim numerous times, it has been repeated. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) repeated it today. That claim is untrue. It was made in the summer, and it is no wonder that BMA members were worried. If I were a junior doctor and someone told me I was going to have a 20% or 30% pay cut and would have to work longer hours, I would be extremely worried, and of course I would be angry. The fact is, however, that the claim was not true. The gravity of that untruth is such that it can still be repeated in this Chamber as if it were true.

Junior doctors, who no doubt informed the hon. Lady—I know she is not willingly misleading the House—still think they are going to have a pay cut of 20%. If we are still in an atmosphere where people believe they are going to have something that they are not, and that they will have to work more hours than they will, it will of course be difficult to come to a resolution until we allow things to calm down. That is why it is important to move to a point where junior doctors have the contract in front of them, so that they can see the effect on their working patterns and see that much of what they have been told is simply not true. We can then, I hope, move to a much better position in individual trusts where we can start discussing the existing problems that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned, such as rotas, training schedules and the like.

I will address some of the individual points that hon. Members have made during this interesting debate. Apart from misrepresenting the shape of the negotiations as if somehow the Secretary of State had broken off talks, which he did not, the hon. Member for Warrington North questioned the research that led to the various statements that the Secretary of State and others—many of them clinicians—have made about the so-called weekend effect, or avoidable excess mortality attributable to weekend admissions. I should make absolutely clear where the link is. Almost any clinician in the NHS will recognise that we do not yet have the same consistency of care over the weekends that we do during the week in every hospital or every setting where we need it. We know that, and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made a similar point herself.

Our manifesto pledge was translated into the mandate that is reflected in all the contract negotiations that are going on, and it concerns one particular issue—the need to standardise urgent and emergency care—and nothing more. It is not about elective care; I have made that point several times to the hon. Lady. People who are admitted at weekends—including, to some extent, those admitted at the shoulder periods at the end of Fridays and especially on Monday mornings, because of inconsistency of care over the weekends—will then be able to expect the same standard of care, which will contribute to lower mortality rates as part of a wider package to reduce mortality attributable to weekends.

The drive for that comes from clinicians. It comes from the seven days a week forum convened by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which reported at the end of 2012 and gave the Secretary of State and the whole service 10 clinical standards that it believed would help to reduce variation in weekend clinical standards. It is those standards that we seek to bring in across the service. The academy has said that four of them in particular are the most important for reducing variation. They relate to urgent and emergency care, and it is those standards that we seek to fulfil across the service.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is once again managing to conflate two things. Everyone accepts the need to improve emergency care at weekends. What is not accepted—this is where the Secretary of State misused the research, and I was questioning his use of it, rather than the research itself—is a causal link between junior doctors’ work patterns and the deaths that occur. That is simply wrong; the research does not show that. In fact, a great deal more research is needed to find out the actual causes of the excess mortality.

[Ben Gummer]

If the hon. Lady were quoting the Secretary of State correctly, he would indeed be wrong, but he has never made a causal link precisely with junior doctors’ working hours. He has said that it is the working patterns of the NHS as a whole. One of the studies that the hon. Lady quoted in part makes it clear that the purpose of the research study was not to look at answers to the questions that were raised, but it did say that one of the areas that policy makers should look at first is staffing ratios over the weekend.

Let me ask the hon. Lady something. There is general acceptance across the service of a weekend effect. There are varying studies that, under different research scenarios, point to figures of 6,000, 8,000 and 11,000 deaths, and sometimes more—15,000, for example. Does she believe that if the number were 2,000, it would therefore not be right to deal with this problem? Would 500 be an acceptable number of deaths that we should tolerate without seeking to reform contracts? In fact, what price should we put on an avoidable death? Or is she saying that not one single death in the service is related to staffing ratios over the weekend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is once again managing to conflate two different issues. Let me repeat what the researchers said:

“It is not possible to ascertain the extent to which these…deaths may be preventable; to assume that they are avoidable would be rash and misleading.”

That is the researchers’ comment on their own research. Of course, nobody wants to see preventable deaths, but the Secretary of State has tried to use the research to link those deaths to junior doctors’ working patterns. It simply does not prove that. He is wrong.

[Ben Gummer]

I will happily arrange for the hon. Lady to have a clinical explanation of the various studies that she has cited, because I think she will then understand why the part that she has quoted needs to be understood in context—[Interruption.] I am asking her a direct question: does she—and do other hon. Members, who are tittering about this on the Opposition Benches—really propose that there is no weekend effect? If they are saying that is the case, or if they are saying that there are 500 or 1,000 deaths and that somehow is acceptable and the Secretary of State should not address himself to it, that is a worrying statement of intent.

[Dr Whitford]

rose—

[Helen Jones]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

I will not give way to the hon. Member for Warrington North. I give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.

[Ben Gummer]

One of the studies that the hon. Lady cites does a control for acuity, which she has raised. I know that there is an understandable change in the acuity of patients and one of the studies allows for that.

As for the point about the 10 clinical standards—and here I will just move on from the points that the hon. Member for Warrington North was making—

[Helen Jones]

Before the Minister does, will he give way? He asked me a direct question.

[Ben Gummer]

I will in a second, but hopefully I will answer the hon. Lady’s point first. She says that I am conflating two things, but I am certainly not; I am saying that there is a recognisable weekend effect. We can have a discussion about the precise numbers involved, but the key answer is that clinicians themselves understand that something needs to be done to reduce variation. I will come to junior doctors in a second, but clinicians themselves have offered the 10 clinical standards, which lie at the base of this. We are not doing anything extra beyond what clinicians are recommending. The four key clinical standards lie at the heart of our changes to urgent and emergency care to ensure consistency of standards, and it is right that one of them relates to the training of junior doctors. The standard at the moment is not as good at the weekend, because they do not have consultant cover, and that is something we are hoping to change. It is also true that the 10 clinical standards refer to senior decision makers, and there is a discussion about precisely who that might be. I will give way to the hon. Lady now, and then we will move on.

[Helen Jones]

Had the Minister listened to what I said, he would have heard me say that there is a weekend effect, even when the control for acuity is put in, and that more research is needed to find out exactly why that occurs. No one on the Opposition side wants to see preventable deaths in the NHS, but the Minister has to explain why this contract that he wishes to impose is so important in preventing them, when many trusts have already managed to improve weekend working—including Salford—without it.

[Ben Gummer]

On the issue of the response to the mounting clinical evidence of a weekend effect—I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises it—clinicians have said that we need to reduce variation by changing the clinical standards that we hold clinicians to, and that is what we are seeking to do. That is why all the contracts relating to clinicians are being reformed. It is part of a package. I have made that point in this Chamber many times before, so Members who keep repeating that somehow we are loading everything on to junior doctors are just not listening to the points that the Government are making—that it is part of a piece.

The recommendations of the DDRB—the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration—asked for far more radical changes to Saturday working. We have moderated those in an effort to bring about negotiations and discussions with the British Medical Association, but it has refused to do that.

I will answer one more point that the hon. Lady made in her speech. She said that a point of contention was payments and reward for length of service. I think she was referring to increments. That issue was resolved with the BMA as part of the 90%, so I hope she therefore sees that it is not a substantial part of the argument, despite what she pretended.

The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) mentioned issues around psychiatry, which was a legitimate point to make. That is precisely why, as part of the new contract, flexible pay premia will be paid to psychiatrist trainees, so that we can provide an incentive to get more trainees opting for this specialism. It is clear that across the service, there are specialisms that, for decades now, have not recruited the numbers that we would all like to see going in. We have identified three where we think a particular incentive is appropriate, because of the difficulty of going into those specialisms—general practice, emergency medicine and psychiatry. This is one that we proposed. It was disagreed with and then agreed with by the BMA, and we hope, therefore, to address precisely the point that she made in her speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

Sir David, I apologise for demoting you to the ranks in my opening remarks.

This has been an interesting debate, although I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply. He is normally a very reasonable man, except when he is attributing things to Opposition Members that we have not actually said. His problem is that he is being sent here time after time to defend the indefensible. It is clear that there is a deal to be done, as Opposition Members have said, but there is no movement from the Government to get people back around the table to do that deal. If the contract is so good that it provides a land of milk and honey for junior doctors, as the Minister seems to imply, one wonders why they are not dancing in the street at the prospect of it.

We have heard clearly from Opposition Members about junior doctors’ worry that the contract will lead to excess hours and that they are moving from being part of a team, where they learn and progress properly, to being just another rota of shift workers to be shifted around. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), whose return I too am very glad to see, about her experience in the NHS and the staff who went the extra mile for her, and we have heard about the weekends that people work.

We have also heard some extraordinary attacks from Government Members on a respected profession. I understand that the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) may have suffered a personal tragedy, but that does not in any way justify her attempts to smear all junior doctors as a bunch of militants who are endangering patient safety.

[Ben Gummer]

She did not say that. Withdraw.

[Helen Jones]

Yes, she did say they were endangering—

[Ben Gummer]

She did not say that. Withdraw.

[Helen Jones]

She did. She said they were Corbynites—

[Ben Gummer]

Withdraw!

[Helen Jones]

No, I am not going to withdraw that remark. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and Helen Jones

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are different ways into nursing. Just a few weeks ago, we announced a massive expansion in apprenticeships across the NHS, and I anticipate that a significant number will be for those going into nursing. The new post of nursing associate is a vocational route into nursing via an apprenticeship. In addition, our reforms to bursaries will ensure that there is a 25% increase in funding to recipients, bringing it into line with the rest of the student cohort. That cohort has seen a considerable expansion in the number of students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds as a result of the reforms that we undertook in 2011 and 2012.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that his Government’s decision to cut nurse training places by 3,000 a year since 2010 has led to the huge shortage of nursing staff in the NHS and an increased reliance on nurses recruited from abroad and expensive agency staff, and that that will get worse with the abolition of bursaries? Is not this a textbook example of a false economy from the Government?

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady should look at the facts. March 2015 saw a record number of nurses in the NHS—319,595. We are increasing the number of nurse training places. We are able to increase them by considerably more than we could have done otherwise, as a result of the reforms to student finance that bring nurses into line with teachers and other public sector professionals.

NHS (Contracts and Conditions)

Debate between Ben Gummer and Helen Jones

Monday 14th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Gillan, as it was to serve under the previous Chair, Ms Vaz.

This is an important and exciting day because we are responding to the first e-petition under the new system. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is quite right that it should have happened some time earlier. I hope that through what are pretty modest forays into social media we can make more popular the debates that take place in Westminster Hall, because they are often far more thoughtful and certainly more nuanced than some of the debates that one hears just a few hundred yards away.

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), for her introduction. Hers was a vigorous opening argument and certainly did what it should have done, which was to spur a good and, at many points, enlightening debate. There is much to which I would like to respond, but at times the debate turned into a general critique of the NHS, so if I tried to answer every point, Mrs Gillan, I think we would be here beyond the 7.30 pm cut-off that you and, I imagine, other Members would not like me to reach.

The debate encompassed many of the issues and problems that confront the NHS, as do all discussions of seven-day services because they touch on contract reform and how we manage the NHS workforce. At the core of the debate was what we are trying to do: deliver exceptional, world-class care to every patient coming to an NHS institution, hospital, GP or community service in England and, by extension, the other nations of this country.

I, too, pay tribute to some shadow Front Benchers. I am grateful for the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I almost wish he had not said what he did, because I wanted to say that I hope he keeps his Front-Bench position. He has always been a very reasonable defender of the Labour party’s point of view and a strong interrogator of the Government’s policies. That is exactly what opposition should provide. I should take the opportunity to say how much I will miss his colleague, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), with whom I sat in this Chamber a couple of days ago for his last debate as a shadow Minister. I did not have the opportunity then—the moment escaped me, and I did not have knowledge or foresight about where he would be on Saturday—to wish him well and say how much I had, in my short time as a Minister, enjoyed debating important issues in the Chamber with him.

It is also entirely right to say that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has been Secretary of State for Health, a Health Minister before that, and a shadow Secretary of State for a long time. His contribution to debates about the NHS has been very important. It is clear from how he speaks that he cares passionately about the health service, and I very much hope that he delivers the same kind of force of argument in his new position as shadow Home Secretary.

It will be good to see what the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), brings to her role. I hope that she will enter into arguments and debates on NHS reform with the spirit of openness and decency shown by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who often attends these debates, bringing a great deal of personal experience from both this country and abroad, and who makes sure—no doubt because we often feel chastised if it goes any other way—that the debate is continued with a sense of decorum and a remembrance that our discussions are held in public. We must be aware of the fact that what turns people off political discourse more than anything is a silly repetition of party political positions with no meeting in the middle or discussion of the issues at hand.

It is in that spirit that I hope to address the central point of the presentation of the petition by the hon. Member for Warrington North. I am glad that we have these petitions, although perhaps a little less glad that this particular petition contains such stridency of language. Nevertheless, at the core, what concerns me is the point made very well by the hon. Lady: words matter. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). We must be very careful about the words we use—not only the manner in which we say them but how they might or might not be construed.

Hon. Members may not be surprised to hear that I have read—several times, as it happens—the Secretary of State’s speech on this matter. I have also seen the coverage on it, and there is dissonance between the two. At no point did he attack NHS staff or suggest that they are not working in conditions that are often heroic, and at no point did he suggest that we have ended up at this impasse because of a wilful wish on the part of NHS staff not to work at weekends. What was construed from that speech has unfortunately meant that our debate has been about a number of words and phrases that were not used, intended or even suggested.

Turning to the core of the speech, the Secretary of State began by saying that talking about seven-day services is not news to a large number of NHS staff, because nurses, porters, cleaners and many of those working under the “Agenda for Change” contract have, for the entirety of their professional lives, been working in seven-day services. His main contention was that, given the weight of evidence on excess mortality that can be attributed to differential working patterns at weekends and on weekdays, it is at least reasonable to ask what we are doing to ensure that if someone is admitted on a Saturday or a Sunday they can expect the same quality treatment and intensity of consultant and diagnostic support as they would receive on a Wednesday. That suggestion was not plucked out of the blue.

I have two points to make. Given that the petition is an ad hominem attack on the Secretary of State, it is right to say that I have never encountered anyone in a ministerial post who has acquitted himself with as much passion about a point on which he wishes to concentrate—patient safety—as the Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Leigh recognised that when he was shadow Secretary of State, and it is recognised even by those who often oppose the Secretary of State in the BMA and other professional representation bodies. The fact is that the Secretary of State is passionate about patient safety. He cares deeply about it, which is why he takes an intense interest in gathering evidence about differential mortality rates.

I want to run through in detail where NHS England’s thinking comes from and why the Government have decided to act as they have. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire knows, there have been various academic papers from the United States and some from the United Kingdom on differential mortality, and they contain many of the questions and answers that have been alluded to today. It is certainly true that people are admitted sicker at weekends, which points in part to the need to do something about community and GP services at weekends. That is part of the reason why people are being admitted sicker. If somebody with a serious acute illness is seen on a Wednesday, they will receive a level of service—both diagnostic and consultant support—that they are unlikely to receive in many hospitals on a Saturday or Sunday.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is making a sensible point, but could he enlighten us about exactly which services the Government foresee working seven days a week? Has the Department for Health assessed how many extra staff will be required to ensure that happens? NHS staff have got to have days off sometimes, so if they are working at the weekend they will have to have a day off in the middle of the week. How many more staff will we need?

[Ben Gummer]

Those are very reasonable questions. If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue with what I was setting out, I will certainly answer them.

That assortment of academic research, together with the wide anecdotal evidence from people who have experienced poor care in good hospitals, either for themselves or for their relatives, led NHS England to conduct the Seven Days a Week forum in 2013, which gathered together clinicians to look at the challenge. It produced a clear strategy for dealing with differences in care quality at weekends, compared with the week, and set out 10 clinical standards that it believes hospitals must meet to eradicate the difference between weekday and weekend working. Many hospitals are implementing the 10 clinical standards on a variable basis during weekdays, so the work done for weekends was helpful in determining a standard clinical approach for maximising the ability to reduce avoidable deaths for weekend and weekday admittances. The product of that forum was taken forward by NHS England and incorporated into its five-year forward view, in which the NHS, separately from the Government, made a commitment to seven-day services. It did so not because of the benefits to patients—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, that is a secondary reason for pursuing the agenda—but purely because of the need to reduce excess mortality where possible.

This is a challenge on the scale of infections in hospitals. It is our duty not only to find out precisely why excess deaths are happening—as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire correctly said, further work is needed and the data must be understood—but to do what we can as quickly as possible to reduce them where we think they are preventable. That is why NHS England incorporated the seven-day service into its five-year forward view. NHS England asked for an additional £30 billion of spending between 2015 and 2020, of which it said £22 billion can be achieved through efficiencies within the service. It is important to point out to the hon. Member for Warrington North, who made that point, that they are not cuts but genuine efficiencies within the organisation. On top of the £22 billion of internal efficiencies though a better use of IT, to which she alluded, and better job rostering—I will turn to that in a minute—there will need to be an injection of £8 billion to make up the rest of the £30 billion. That package will implement the five-year forward view, which includes seven-day services and many other things of great importance and about which all parties agree, such as shifting resources from providers to primary care, social care and the community sector.

This programme was not invented by the Secretary of State in a speech given to annoy doctors and consultants, much as that might be the impression given by some people on Twitter. It is the policy response of a Government taking seriously the clinical evidence and advice of NHS England, led by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. We are responding to give NHS England and the providers tools with which they can deliver a seven-day NHS service in hospitals and GP practices.

I turn to the changes in the contracts, which are at the heart of the petition and the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North. The contract terms are based on a review by the doctors and dentists pay review body, which identified a number of areas where contract reform is needed, including the systems of opt-out and on call. It asked a completely reasonable question: why should it be that some members of the workforce, who are expected to work at weekends as part of their normal shift patterns, do not have the option of an opt-out from their contract, while others—who tend, as it happens, to be far more highly paid than those who do not have the option of an opt-out—do? It proposed a series of changes, which in our view make up a far better contract for both junior doctors and consultants. On balance, we feel that it presents a real opportunity for consultants and doctors to improve not only their working conditions but, in some cases, their pay.

To take some salient examples from the consultants’ contract, we want a far more equitable and reasonable distribution of clinical excellence awards—many consultants are privately critical of how they are awarded—within not a cut to the total consultant budget, but exactly the same existing pay framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Gummer and Helen Jones

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with NHS England on the future of district general hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

The NHS was launched in a district general hospital. The continuing commitment of NHS England to DGHs is shown in their serial mentions in the “Five Year Forward View”. I recommend that the hon. Lady reads that to see the future for district general hospitals and the important role they will play.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but it ignores the reality on the ground. In opposition, the Prime Minister promised a bare-knuckle fight to save district general hospitals. Since he came to power, Warrington has lost its vascular services and some of its spinal services, maternity services are under review, and a £15 million deficit threatens the future of the trust. Did that bare-knuckle fighter get knocked out, or did he not even bother to enter the ring?

[Ben Gummer]

I gently remind the hon. Lady that the difference is that changes to services provided at hospitals are now made on the recommendation of clinicians, rather than of bureaucrats and Ministers, as it was under the previous Government, in which she served. In respect of her own hospital, the number of diagnostic tests for cancer are up by 22,000 since 2010, the number of MRI scans by 6,000, the number of CT scans by 7,000 and the number of operations by 1,800. That is a record of which to be proud.

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between Ben Gummer and Helen Jones

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones]

I have said no. The hon. Lady was not even here for the beginning of the debate.

It is not sufficient for the Government to ensure that private companies determine our health care; they will also introduce EU competition law into the NHS. That means that the private health companies that are currently hovering over the NHS like a bunch of vultures will threaten legal action if services are not put out to tender. They will then cherry-pick the services in which they can make the most money—they do not want to do geriatric care, paediatrics or A and E. That will fatally wound and undermine local hospitals and some, no doubt, will go to the wall. It is no surprise that the Health and Social Care Bill includes detailed insolvency provisions.

Some hospitals will bring in more private patients to fill the gap, because the Bill lifts the cap on private patients. We will therefore have the absurd situation of private companies making decisions on health care, and of NHS staff and facilities being used not for those most in need, but for those with the ability to pay. There is a word for that and it is not often used in this House: it is quite simply immoral. It is also indefensible.

At the same time, these plans will undermine our ability to deal with long-term conditions. Progress has been made on conditions such as stroke through co-operation, not competition. It has been made through stroke networks, by sharing expertise and by reconfiguring services to get the best deal. All the expertise in primary care trusts on delivering those services will be swept away.

[Ben Gummer]

rose—

[Helen Jones]

I have made my view clear, so the hon. Gentleman is wasting his time. The expertise will be swept away, and the plethora of GP commissioning consortia will have no strategic overview of these services.

There has always been a democratic deficit in the NHS, but the Bill will increase it vastly. It will give £75 billion to £80 billion to unaccountable consortia. It will remove from the Secretary of State the requirement to secure the provision of services. I say to Government Members: when the services go, do not come here to complain because the Secretary of State will not be responsible any more. The NHS commissioning board will be appointed by the Secretary of State and he will be able to dismiss its members at will. It will have no independence. Monitor will not have a single elected member.

The Bill does not give power to patients, and it does not empower health service staff. Kingsley Manning of Tribal summed it up cleverly as a Bill to denationalise the NHS. It is not supported by doctors, and it is not supported by patients. I say to the Liberal Democrats that if they go through the Lobby tonight in support of this reorganisation, people out there will not forget and they will not forgive.