NHS England Update

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

The Government have come in with an ambitious reform agenda. As we embark on that reform, we are cutting NHS waiting lists—we have done that five months in a row. We are reforming the GP contract—those negotiations have successfully concluded. We are about to conclude community pharmacy, too. We have put in place a transformation team who are experienced frontline leaders with demonstrable track records—particularly in the case of Sir Jim Mackey—of delivering those changed outcomes. There will always be people who say that it is too hard, too difficult or a distraction, but that is how we have ended up with this status quo; that is how the Conservative party presided over the longest waiting lists and the lowest patient satisfaction on record while spending staggering amounts of public money. More money and no reform is not the answer; the lesson of the previous Labour Government is that investment plus reform delivers results. That is what this Labour Government are doing.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and pay tribute to NHS professionals in Harlow, particularly those at the Princess Alexandra hospital, for their incredible hard work every single day. Does he agree that NHS staff, who work incredibly hard, are failed by an overly bureaucratic and fragmented system, and that spiralling staff costs are partly a result of the need for additional agency staff?

[Wes Streeting]

We absolutely need to reduce the cost of agency staff in the NHS. That costs the taxpayer billions, and that money could be better spent on ensuring that we have the right staff in the right place, on better terms and conditions, and with permanent contracts. Where we do need flexibility, we should drive it through the NHS bank. We are determined to reform the way that works and deliver better staffing, better outcomes for patients and better value for taxpayers.

Department of Health and Social Care

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. She has obviously been reading my speech— I will cover the announcement later in my speech, at which point she will hear exactly what it says.

As I say, the NAO has confirmed that productivity levels have dropped by 23%. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a 10-year plan for the NHS. We have also repeatedly warned that, with an ageing and increasingly sick population, the NHS will struggle to cope with the ever-increasing multiple complex demands of our population.

I wish to split this speech into three sections: how productivity could be improved in the NHS; funding; and, as the hon. Member for Stafford alluded to, technical advancements and a shift into community care.

The Department of Health and Social Care’s day-to-day spending—RDEL—is set to increase by £10.9 billion—from £187.9 billion to the main estimate as produced today of £198.5 billion. The capital spending is, however, set to decrease by around £1 billion, from £12.5 billion to £11.5 billion—a decrease of 8%. That is worrying as it shows that more and more funds are being redirected from long-term investment—for example, in the new hospitals to which the previous Government had committed themselves. I welcome the new Treasury guidelines that have stopped the practice of the past few years of redirecting up to £1 billion from capital spending to day-to-day spending. That should help to make more money available.

The NHS estate, as we all know from our constituencies, is in desperate need of investment, and our capital investment programme is running behind schedule. The problems with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete have only added to the necessity of upgrading our hospitals, and I hope the Minister will listen to this plea.

The latest NAO report on the DHSC annual report and accounts shows that local systems, such as integrated care boards and NHS providers, reported a year-end overspend of £1.4 billion. This has nearly doubled from £621 million in 2022-23. This was despite an extra £4.5 billion of additional funding during 2023-24, which was to support pay deals for non-medical staff, mitigate any impacts from industrial action and provide money to address the costs of new pay arrangements for doctors and dentists.

What I do not think is acceptable is the glacial pace of agreeing priorities and approving final budgets for the local systems. In November, our Committee was shocked to hear that, in the past two years, those local systems—ICBs and others—had not had their financial plans approved by the Department until June and May respectively. That is up to three months after the start of the financial year. How can our poor local systems plan efficiently when these final allocations and guidance are so late? If the Department’s own accounts were finalised much sooner, our local systems would be able to have the money allocated in a more timely way, making wastage and inefficient spending less likely.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s prognosis that the NHS is far too big and complicated. There should be a shift towards allowing NHS trusts more control of their own budgets, as clarified in the 2025-26 priorities and operational planning guidance published in January. Moving more funds directly to NHS trusts, ICBs and local systems will improve accountability and give them a level of flexibility about how their funds should be better spent, rather than just focusing on targets and directives. For example, if they were to run a surplus because they had run their operation so well, they could reinvest the money in desperately needed capital projects rather than returning it to Whitehall. That must also go hand in hand with a need to improve productivity. Between 1996 and 2019, the NHS averaged a measly 0.6% a year increase in productivity.

Since the pandemic, productivity has now fallen by 23%. In March 2024, the Conservative Government announced that the NHS would receive £3.4 billion of capital investment for digital improvements between 2025-26 and 2027-28, which begins to address the point that the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned. As part of that investment, NHS England committed to achieving ambitious average productivity improvements of 2% per year through to 2029-30. However, those digital improvements, presaged by that additional £3.4 billion, have not yet been fully actioned.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech and, importantly, for his scrutiny of the NHS. He reflected on the fact that productivity has worsened since the pandemic. Does he not think that is to do with the mental health of staff? To support our NHS professionals to be as productive as possible, should we not be considering looking after their health, including their mental health?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The NHS employs an enormous number of staff—more than 1 million people, I think—and their conditions of work are really important if we are to retain them. That does mean that their mental health needs close attention, especially when they have problems. If the NHS cannot help with mental health issues, who can? The hon. Gentleman has hit on a really important point.

One reason that productivity is not improving more is that there are 19% more staff in the NHS, but they are seeing only 14% more patients. At our hearing, NHS officials stated that this was due to more complex and acute health needs, meaning longer stays in hospital. I also understand that it was due to staff sickness, absences and the then ongoing workforce industrial action that affected most patients last year, making targets more difficult to meet. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I am still getting emails from constituents whose appointments and operations were cancelled at the last minute due to that industrial action and who are still waiting for their procedures to be rearranged.

Along with staff, technology plays a big role in improving efficiency and productivity. The 2025-26 priorities and operational planning guidance stated that the NHS organisation

“will need to reduce their cost base by at least 1% and achieve 4% improvement in productivity.”

I understand that these figures are hard to pin down due to the NHS still negotiating with bodies such as the ONS on the definition of productivity and how it can be measured. I say to the Minister that, even if the numbers are disputed, we have still not seen a plan for how these productivity gains can be achieved, and the Committee believes that NHS England has produced unrealistic estimates. We need to have a realistic estimate from the Department of what productivity gains can be achieved over the next few years.

Without significant productivity gains, the NHS will not substantially reform waiting times and achieve the best value for the large amount of money that we spend on it. On average, there is a 4% real terms increase in our spending each year, when the economy is growing by only 1%, which is unsustainable in the long term. If we go back to 2013, the Health Secretary had set the NHS a challenge of going paperless by 2018. Clearly, as we all know, that has not happened, because the NHS is still using fax machines. In a digital age of AI, that lack of modernisation produces a risk to both patients and employees in the NHS. Investing in better technology would help with the Government’s ambition to shift more care into the community.

Community healthcare can take many forms, from GP surgeries and community hospitals to pharmacies, dentists and social care. I fear that when we talk about the NHS budget, we predominantly focus on hospital care, rather than the care that most of our constituents need every day. Indeed, Lord Darzi’s report, which was commissioned by the Government last year, said that

“the NHS budget is not being spent where it should be—too great a share is being spent in hospitals, too little in the community, and productivity is too low”

This is where I would like to pay tribute to our GPs and all their staff across the country, especially in the North Cotswolds. Our GP surgeries are usually the first point of contact with our NHS, from antenatal services to blood tests and vaccinations. They also offer a number of services that could be termed preventive care.

As a Committee, we questioned NHS officials on their prioritisation of preventing ill health rather than treating it, thus avoiding much more expensive hospital interventions in the future and a much better patient experience. Their reply was that they had little additional headroom to grow preventive services, yet the public health grant used by local authorities to commission preventive measures, such as health visitors and drug and alcohol services, is expected to fall in value next year by £193 million, despite the Government’s commitment to maintaining it in real terms. I cannot stress enough how I believe that we should be paying much more attention to prevention rather than cure; it is just so important.

NHS England said that, rather than moving funds, there should be a focus on the role of GPs and how they can advise their patients. However, according to the Royal College of General Practitioners, although more than 90% of patients’ direct experience of the NHS is through primary care and GP practices, less than 10% of the total budget is currently spent on primary care. I say gently to the Minister that we are getting our priorities wrong there.

As a Committee, we have recommended that the Government clearly define what counts as health prevention spending within the next six months and track that spending annually. ICBs should be given more flexibility in how they spend their money, which might include redirecting services to more community settings that are closer to patients. It might also include redirecting funds to help manage discharges from hospital. According to the House of Commons Library, the latest data shows that last year an average of 12,340 patients a day remained in hospital despite being clinically fit to be discharged. Even though there is a slight decrease of 1.2% from last year, more can be done to ensure that patients who are well enough can leave hospital for the community and be closer to their families. That will require better working between social care and hospitals.

Women’s Health

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this really important debate.

In my first MP surgery I spoke to Debbie, a victim of the pelvic mesh scandal. I was horrified by her story, and by how thousands of women like her not only suffered enormous, life-changing pain, but many felt they were left without a voice, that their concerns were dismissed and that they were not being taken seriously. Since then, half a dozen women from Harlow constituency have come to me with similar stories.

The issue of women not being listened to goes far further than the pelvic mesh scandal. In fact, it probably goes far further than the issue of women’s health. I am deeply disappointed—I would go as far to say I am ashamed —to hear so many women in my Harlow constituency and beyond tell me that their chronic pain is going undiagnosed. They are being told terrible things like, “It’s just your period,” or, “It’s just your hormones,” or, “You’ll be fine. Go home, put your feet up, have a paracetamol”—despite the fact that 10% of women worldwide suffer from endometriosis.

The NHS website describes the symptoms of endo-metriosis as

“severe period pain, that stops you from doing your normal activities”,

and

“heavy periods, where you need to change your pads or tampons every 1 to 2 hours, or you may bleed through to your clothes”,

and pain when going to the toilet. The World Health Organisation describes how endometriosis can

“decrease quality of life due to severe pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety and infertility.”

Some individuals with endometriosis experience debilitating pain that prevents them from going to work or to school. It is fair to say that a lay down and a paracetamol does not quite cover it. The situation is made worse by the fact that some women are having to wait for up to eight years for a diagnosis. The negative impact on women’s mental health is unimaginable—it can result in the need for antidepressants—and, as we heard in previous speeches, young girls in particular are ignored. Nicola, an acupuncturist in my constituency, told me that a number of women patients had come to her feeling that they were being ignored. Frankly, in 2025, that is just not right.

My ask to the Minister is to let this Government be the Government who take women’s health seriously. Let us have a charter that says that the concerns of women suffering from chronic pain cannot be dismissed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Chair of the Committee will have seen that we have made an explicit commitment to the mental health investment standard—we are absolutely committed to that. In addition, we have to drive reform in the system so that it is about not just the amount of investment going in, but how we ensure that it is working properly. I am absolutely confident that the commitment to 8,500 new specialists, the Young Futures hubs and having a mental health specialist in every school will facilitate the delivery of services in a far more effective way than is currently the case.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his continued commitment to supporting mental health in this country. Does he also recognise that mental health involves supporting NHS frontline staff? I had the wonderful opportunity of spending time with the East of England ambulance service on Saturday morning. They work incredibly long hours and work incredibly hard. Obviously, we need to think about their mental health as well.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We in this Chamber should, whenever possible, pay tribute to the people providing those frontline services, who every day work heroically in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the pressures on the workforce—we are very conscious of that. We will bring forward a workforce plan in the summer, and we are working at pace to recruit the 8,500 mental health workers.

National Cancer Plan

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

I thank my hon. Friend. I always call him my hon. Friend because I see more of him than I see of my wife. [Laughter.] Usually because we are in the same debates.

The hon. Member makes an important point about research, which will be a crucial aspect of the national cancer plan. Advances in technology, science and pharmaceuticals do not happen by accident; they happen because we fund the research to get to that point. We need to do much better in researching some of the rarer and less survivable cancers. Those scientists and charities must have access to the funds that are available so they can carry out the research we need.

As for where the 30 sites will be, that is above my pay grade. There are criteria, but I will take it back to my officials and see what we can do.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank every Member on both sides of the Chamber who has shared their personal stories.

I was nine years old when I lost my grandmother, Grace, to cancer. That was a long time ago, but it still has a profound effect on me. Does the Minister agree that early detection is vital for survival rates? In particular, I emphasise the point about the importance of ensuring that women are taken seriously when they visit their GP.

I thank my constituent Sir Rod Stewart for the support he gave to the radiography department at Princess Alexandra hospital. Does the Minister agree that this national cancer plan will mean that we do not have to rely on the good will of rock legends such as Rod Stewart to support everyone in our society?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Talk about name-dropping; if only I had such famous constituents. Burnage was once home to the Gallagher brothers, and Denton was home to Mick Hucknall—I do not think any of them live there any more.

My hon. Friend makes an important point that women, in particular, have to be taken seriously by their GPs. The symptoms of some of these cancers could indicate a multitude of different things but, knowing from my mum’s bitter experience, I would sooner that GPs erred on the side of caution and got people diagnosed. If the diagnosis turns out not to be cancer, what a wonderful result that is. If it is cancer, we can get them on the treatment pathway sooner rather than later.

New Hospital Programme

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helena Dollimore]

rose—

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

I will not give way yet.

Yet that is exactly what the Government have done again and again, breaking not only that pledge but a series of pledges they made during the election—that they would not say in government that they had been forced into a particular situation. That was the Chancellor’s specific pledge. It was clear from the Secretary of State’s statement this week that the Government intend to continue making the issue a political football.

I will reiterate the important context behind the challenges that we are seeing in NHS capital backlogs. When we came into Government in 2010, £1 in every £4 being spent by the Government was borrowed, which was clearly unsustainable. If the Labour party thinks that its current economic inheritance presents challenges for public spending, let me remind it of what we inherited. Unemployment was higher; inflation was higher; the deficit, or the black hole as Labour Members like to call it, was higher; and economic growth was lower. Even in that context, however, we prioritised NHS spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

rose—

[Chris Vince]

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who stood up first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday, in which £1.5 billion of Government funding was dedicated to Princess Alexandra hospital. At my local hospital in Harlow, it is not just an issue of funding: in fact, the land was not purchased and the business plan was not completed. The idea that the hospital would be completed by 2030 was a pipe dream, was it not?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am happy to take interventions, but I need to finish by half-past 4, so I am conscious of time. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to his point.

We need to be very clear and honest with people about what was ready and about the different stages of these programmes, which we are very keen to do. Staff and patients deserve better. That is why the Secretary of State asked officials to review the programme and put it on a firm footing with sustainable funding so that all the projects can be delivered.

I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his service to the NHS and his experience. I agree that it is appalling for staff. We all understand that he and I disagree in our political analysis, but he made some really well-informed points about models of care and future models of care, all of which we need to take into account in the delivery of this programme and other parts of the capital programme—and we will.

As the Secretary of State announced to the House on Monday, we now have a realistic plan to deliver the programme. I am pleased that we can be honest with people as we start a new chapter setting out a new commitment to deliver these hospitals, which are so important to all our constituents, that is realistic and backed with funding. We have worked closely with the Treasury to secure five-year waves of investment, backed by £15 billion of investment over consecutive waves, averaging £3 billion a year. This will ensure a balanced portfolio of schemes at different development stages being delivered now and into the future.

The new delivery plan sets out the order and the waves of investment in which each new hospital will be constructed. Hospitals included in a wave will begin construction, while forthcoming schemes will be undertaking pre-construction work to prepare planning permission and secure business cases. With this approach, we can ensure that schemes are ready to be built as soon as possible. A list of the schemes in each wave has been published on gov.uk and in the plan for implementation.

For reference, I will briefly outline the timeline for delivery. [Interruption.] Actually, I think we have seen all the waves, and the hon. Gentleman wants us to move on to Bexhill and East Sussex.

Winter Preparedness

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We have discussed this issue a number of times in this place. We absolutely understand the impact of cold and heat on the system and on people. It is something we need to address more generally. She will be aware that discussions on this issue are continuing with the DWP. If there are specific examples she wants to raise with me or the Department, I am very happy to look at them.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome today’s statement and take a moment to thank emergency services in Harlow and across the country who are giving up spending time with their families at Christmas to keep us all safe. East of England ambulance service has set up a new process to support paramedics and Princess Alexandra hospital, which will give them a direct line to a GP who can triage patients and send them to the right department straight away. What is the Department of Health and Social Care doing to work with ambulance services across the country to learn from that and share good practice?

[Karin Smyth]

Again, my hon. Friend is already representing the people of his constituency so well by getting to the heart of what is happening on the ground, learning it for himself and bringing such examples to the House. He is absolutely right that there are such examples across the country, working differently in different systems, which are challenging other systems to look at that practice. That is why we say we want to bring the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. That is exactly what we mean. I am confident in the work happening centrally at NHS England. It is learning from such examples and wants to go around the country to ensure that we spread those sorts of ideas to other places. We are looking at them all very closely.

Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pelvic mesh and the Cumberlege Review.

Thank you, Mr Stringer, for your chairmanship. I sincerely thank all Members who have come to contribute to this debate. I thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for attending. I also particularly thank Baroness Cumberlege for coming along to the debate.

In my first MP constituency surgery I met Debbie— I am delighted that Debbie and her husband Ian are here today. Debbie was active. She was into keeping fit and socialising with friends and family but, following her operation to have pelvic mesh inserted, she was forced to give up work. She now suffers from chronic pain in her hips, pelvis, groin and legs. She often suffers from fatigue. She is unable to exercise. She suffers from incontinence, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression and autoimmune disease. She later found out that the operation to have the mesh inserted was not even necessary.

When Debbie had her first operation to have the mesh removed, she was told that it was removed completely, but later found out that was not in fact true. She was forced to have a second operation, where, again, not all the mesh was removed.

Despite winning subsequent court proceedings, she has received no compensation, in part due to the surgeon not being covered by insurance. Debbie’s case shows the barriers for victims of medical negligence. It took seven years for Debbie’s case to get to court. Part of her concern is that the surgeons operating to remove the mesh are the same doctors who did the initial operation to insert it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

This is such an important debate, and many of us in this room have been working on this issue for a very long time. I point the hon. Gentleman to the Government’s review of the NHS. We only have nine centres. We have to emphasise how important it is that the review addresses the need for more surgeons in these areas. The issues that he is outlining are so common, yet we only have nine centres.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. Following my meeting with Debbie, two further Harlow residents have come forward who have also been part of this scandal. I have spoken to Members across the House who have constituents with the same issue. More than 600 women came forward to be part of the Cumberlege review and the subsequent Hughes review. This is a huge issue that affects many people.

As many Members will be aware, on 21 February 2018, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), called for an inquiry. The independent medicines and medical devices safety review, chaired by Baroness Julia Cumberlege, who I am delighted to see here today and whose support I am delighted to have, published the “First Do No Harm” report in July 2020. The report considered two medications and one medical device, but I will focus on pelvic mesh implants, which were used in the surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse and to manage stress urinary incontinence. It was hugely emotional to hear Debbie’s story—to hear at first hand the huge impact that this issue has had on her life.

In her report, Baroness Cumberlege described the accounts of women who had been affected by this issue as “harrowing”. I think we can all agree that that is absolutely the case. I will not go through the whole review, because that would take too long, but I will just highlight a couple of things said by women who came forward and spoke about the impact that the procedure had had on them.

The women said that there was a

“lack of awareness of who to complain to and how to report adverse events”

and reported

“breakdown of family life; loss of jobs, financial support and sometimes housing”.

However, the situation is even worse than that. The women also spoke about a

“loss of identity and self-worth”.

Sometimes, we fail to recognise the massive connection between physical health, including a physical procedure such as this one, and people’s mental health and wellbeing. The women also reported

“a persistent feeling of guilt”.

Nobody who is a victim of medical negligence should feel guilty about that fact.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I think that often the reason people feel guilt is because they feel that they were not given the necessary information at the beginning and they did not ask for it, but if they had only known, they would not have touched this debatable and deplorable procedure with a bargepole.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I could not agree more. In the case of Debbie, who I have spoken about, she did not even need the procedure in the first place, but clearly that information was not provided correctly to her. Many women absolutely would not have gone through with the procedure if they had known about the dangers—and, as I say, in Debbie’s case she did not need to go through with it.

The Cumberlege review made a number of recommendations. First, it recommended establishing a separate redress scheme to meet the cost of care and support for people who have experienced avoidable harm caused by the pelvic mesh. It also recommended:

“Networks of specialist centres should be set up to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by implanted mesh”,

and that a database should be created of all patients who received an implant of medical devices, including the pelvic mesh.

The previous Government published their response to those recommendations in July 2021. They did not accept the report’s recommendations about redress. However, in December 2022 they announced that they had asked the Patient Safety Commissioner to explore options for redress, and that project began in the summer of 2023.

On 7 February 2024, the Hughes report was published, setting out recommendations for redress for those harmed by sodium valproate—a medicine used to treat epilepsy—and pelvic mesh. The report calls for the establishment of an independent, two-stage redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial redress for affected patients.

I realise that I have been talking for quite a long time, Mr Stringer, but I think you appreciate the importance of this subject. I will quickly go through the recommendations of the Hughes report, so the Minister is aware of them. There are quite a few recommendations and they are as follows:

“The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by…pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.”

We have seen that throughout this process patients have not had a voice and it is hugely important that they have a voice in finding the solution.

The Hughes report’s recommendations also said:

“Redress should provide all those harmed by pelvic mesh or valproate”—

the other medicine I mentioned—

“with access to non-financial redress. To deliver this, the government should work with other government departments, the healthcare system and local authorities to measurably improve harmed patients’ access to, and experience of, public services.”

Another recommendation was:

“The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme… The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress… The Interim Scheme should be followed by a Main Scheme. This would offer more bespoke financial support to directly harmed patients based on their individual circumstances and…those indirectly harmed”.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The NHS has a clinical negligence scheme and it spends a lot of money on lawyers. Does my hon. Friend agree that victims of this particular scandal should, like many others, get no-fault compensation? And does he think the NHS should look at its clinical negligence scheme and move towards no-fault in order to reduce the spend on lawyers?

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I broadly agree with her. Over the last year we have seen some terrible scandals, the Post Office scandal and the infected blood scandal. When we have debates on those in this House, we recognise that things should have been done much more quickly and that we should have been much more open to providing financial support to the people affected. We should look at this case in those terms.

To continue the recommendations, the report states:

“Patients who received relevant treatment through either the NHS or independent sector should be eligible for the Interim Scheme and Main Scheme…”

and adds that patients should find the application process for both schemes “straightforward”. Again, that speaks about accessibility and making the process non-adversarial, which is really important. It comes across in both reports that victims of the pelvic mesh scandal were made to feel guilty and that it was their fault, which is absolutely not the case.

The report states that both schemes

“should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.”

We want those patients to feel confidence in the scheme. Both schemes

“should effectively signpost harmed patients to services which can provide them with free emotional support.”

I reiterate the importance of that emotional support. Finally, the report states:

“The government must ensure that the launch of the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme is accompanied”—

this goes back to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—

“by an awareness raising campaign to ensure that all potentially eligible patients are made aware of it.”

As I mentioned earlier, 617 people directly harmed by the pelvic mesh implants contributed to the Cumberlege report, and 471 people directly harmed by the pelvic mesh implants provided evidence to the Hughes report. That shows the huge number of women affected by the scandal. I am delighted to see how many Members from across the House have been contacted, as I was by Debbie, by constituents who have been impacted by this. In August this year more than 100 women who experienced pain and complications from transvaginal mesh implants received payouts from three manufacturers of the product, but there was no admission of liability.

I thank the Minister for his time and for giving consideration to the recommendations. I truly thank everybody from across the House for contributing to this debate and I look forward to hearing from them. I finish with a quote from the Hughes report, from a patient harmed by pelvic mesh:

“It always comes back to we innocently trusted that we were having something that was going to fix our embarrassing health condition and then from that we have had our lives shattered. This is not our fault.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I thank everyone who has spoken about this vital issue. At its heart, it is about women who have been let down and made to feel guilty because they are the victims. That is just not right.

I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—today, we are all hon. Friends—rightly said that we have had this debate time and again. My ask is for the next debate to be after a ministerial statement—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I was going to address that point later in my speech, but let me address it now. It is not often that a Government comment on leaks or welcome the events following a leak; I do not want to encourage future leaks, either. However, it is well known and a matter of accurate reporting, in this case, that we were considering an extension of the ban on outdoor smoking to include outdoor hospitality, including pubs, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Because of that leak, representations were heard from Members from across the House, including the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and others. We took those representations very seriously because we know the hospitality industry has been through a torrid time, and not just in rural communities. I accept that rural pubs face a big challenge, but even high street pubs in towns and cities are struggling.

Our approach to public health always has to weigh up the upside benefits to public health against the downside consequences elsewhere. It is not in the national interest to see our high streets further suffer, so I reassure the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the hospitality industry—although I think it feels reassured on this already—that we will not be consulting on extending the powers to outdoor hospitality spaces. I hope that reassures people, as we embark on consultation on the measures that I am outlining today, that the Government listen, engage and consult seriously. Consultation is genuine with this Government.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not comment on how young I look, but I still get asked for ID when buying non-alcoholic wine.

It is 10 years since the smoking ban came into operation and there are 1.9 million fewer smokers in the UK. Does that show the Secretary of State the difference that a Government that take the matter seriously can make?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am really proud of the impact that the last Labour Government made in reducing smoking harms and the prevalence of smoking in our country.

That brings me on to the next point that I wanted to make. President Truman famously said that it is amazing what you can accomplish

“if you do not care who gets the credit.”

When I first sat down with Rachel Sylvester of The Times in January 2023 and flew a kite to start a debate that a Labour Government might introduce a ban on children and young people today ever buying cigarettes, of the type introduced by our sister party in New Zealand, I was not necessarily convinced my own side would buy it, but I thought it was a debate worth having. I never imagined, in a million years, that I would tune into a Conservative party conference speech by a Conservative Prime Minister announcing his intention to legislate for such a ban. I will do something I do not often do with Conservative party conference speeches and quote extensively—and approvingly—what the then Prime Minister said.

“As Prime Minister I have an obligation to do what I think is the right thing for our country in the long term. And as Conservatives, we have never shirked that responsibility.”

I say that bit through gritted teeth.

“We have always been at the front of society, leading it—”

Who wrote this?

“And when we have the tools at our disposal…to do for our children what we all, in our heart of hearts, know is right, we must act, we must lead…we must put the next generation first.”

In that spirit, I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), for picking up the proposal and running with it despite opposition from his own party. That took courage. While we have taken steps to improve this Bill compared with the one put forward by the previous Government, I hope that hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative Benches will follow his lead, showing that the one nation tradition still has a constituency in the modern Conservative party, and vote for this Bill in the national interest.

The Darzi investigation into the NHS set out the twin challenges facing me, my Department and this Government. The national health service is broken; it is going through the worst crisis in its history. At the point we came into office, waiting lists stood at 7.6 million. We had worse cancer survival rates than most comparable countries, ambulances not arriving on time, the number of GPs falling and dentistry deserts across the country.

Some of the most shocking findings in Lord Darzi’s report, however, were about not the sickness in our NHS, but the sickness in our nation. Children are less healthy today than they were a decade ago. Life expectancy was extended by three and a half years over the course of the last Labour Government, but in the past 14 years, it has grown by just four months. Brits now live shorter lives than people in any other country in western Europe, and we spend fewer years living in good health, becoming sicker sooner. Those are huge costs, borne by all of us as individuals. It means less time in which we are able to live our lives to the full, to do all the things we love and to spend time with the people we love. Sickness is forcing many of us out of work long before retirement age, leaving us dependent on welfare, ridding us of the purpose and belonging that work provides, and for everyone else, it means higher costs to us as taxpayers. Our sick society is holding back our economy, and that is why we should act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

1. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of patient access to primary care services.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of patient access to primary care services.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

21. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of patient access to primary care services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of prevention at a local level. We are trialling neighbourhood health centres across the country to bring together a range of services, ensuring that healthcare is closer to home and that patients receive the care they deserve. This is part of our broader ambition to move towards a neighbourhood health service, with care delivered close to home. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to hear more about what is going well in his community and what further action we need to take.

[Chris Vince]

Does the Secretary of State agree that access to primary care is hugely important to supporting accident and emergency departments at hospitals like the Princess Alexandra in Harlow? Does he also agree that access to primary care is about not just GPs but dentists? Finally, what are the Government’s plans to support dental surgeries such as the aptly named Harlow dental surgery, which I visited last week?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is right that many of the pressures on our hospitals, such as the Princess Alexandra in Harlow, are a result of pressures in other parts of the health and social care system. It is outrageous that the biggest reason for five to nine-year-olds presenting to hospital is tooth decay, which is why we need to get NHS dentistry back on its feet, along with the rest of the NHS.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I have regularly met the British Dental Association since the general election to consider how the dental contract can be reformed to retain dentists and rebuild NHS dental services.