Alcohol Products: Labelling

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister, whose reply I look forward to. Earlier this month, the details of the upcoming Government consultation on alcohol labelling—part of the obesity strategy—were leaked to the press. It is a long-overdue consultation and a welcome positive step that should lead to consumers being able to make more informed choices about their own health and wellbeing, but thanks to yet another hostile Government leak, the consultation was roundly attacked and misrepresented by tabloids and industry representatives. It sparked the usual outraged backlash against the nannying state and red tape, when that is simply not the case. I thought I would attempt to put the record straight.

To avoid confusion or misrepresentation, I whole-heartedly support our hospitality industry, and I understand the uphill battle it faces and the devastation that lockdowns and restrictions have caused. There is excitement and anticipation across the country about getting out, socialising, having a drink, seeing live music and enjoying life. We have all missed spending time with family and friends, whether that is relaxing and unwinding or going out and partying.



When we consider the role of alcohol in our society, we see that there is a balance to be struck. As with many things in life, there is the good and there is the bad, because we cannot escape the very real harm alcohol inflicts. The evidence, which I will come to, speaks for itself. Tackling alcohol harm is not about punishing drinkers or landlords, or taking the fun out of socialising. However, we have a responsibility—the Government have a responsibility—to hold the alcohol industry to account, and to ensure its fair and proper regulation.

Alcohol harm is rising, and it has been for many years, however we want to count it. Alcohol is now linked to 80 deaths a day in the UK, many of them of the young, while alcohol-specific deaths are at their highest rates since records began, and the treatment and funding for alcohol addiction are in absolute crisis, yet there appears to be no sense of urgency from Government. Alcohol is responsible for more years of working life lost than the 10 most frequent cancers combined. Before covid, alcohol took up 37% of ambulance time and a quarter of A&E time. For the police, it is even higher, with more than half of police time spent on alcohol-related incidents. All of this comes at a high financial cost, too. Alcohol harm is estimated to cost the UK taxpayer upwards of £27 billion each year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House. It is a massive issue in his constituency, and very much one in mine as well. Does he not agree that alcohol-specific deaths are at an all-time high owing to a perfect storm? With coronavirus, isolation and lockdown, as well as the fact that very few people use standard pub measures at home, that there are supermarket deals on bottles of alcohol and people do not have to drive to work the next day, it is imperative that we take steps to remind people of the number of units per bottle, make it clear that the glass of wine they are accustomed to at home is not the same as their local pub one, and make people aware of the need to reduce their intake.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, and he is absolutely right.

We know that those in the most deprived communities are disproportionately affected. Despite drinking less on average, they are up to 60% more likely to die from alcohol than more affluent groups. In Liverpool—just one city—there are more than 14,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions every year, and 535 new cases of alcohol-related cancer as well. Alcohol harm and addiction are destroying lives, livelihoods, communities and families.

To return to the matter of today’s debate—alcohol labelling—I would like to ask those listening to remember the last time they looked at a bottle of orange juice. They may remember a number in red detailing the sugar content, a number for how many calories are in the drink, and a whole table with further information on nutritional content. Now picture a bottle of alcohol—wine perhaps. Do they remember seeing any such information about the ingredients, calories or nutritional values? Was there any information about the impact of alcohol on health, or any guidelines for consumption? If I can make a guess, the answer is most likely to be no, or maybe “on some bottles”. That is because none of this information is legally required on alcohol labels. Alcohol products are a conspicuous outlier among consumables. They are exempt from other food and drink labelling requirements, and the only information that is legally required is the volume of the liquid, its strength in ABV—alcohol by volume—and whether any of the 14 most common allergens are present.

In July 2020, the Government unveiled the new obesity strategy. On the subject of labelling, the Health Secretary said

“it’s only fair that you are given the right information about the food you’re eating to help people to make good decisions.”

He is absolutely right, and what he says is as true for alcoholic drinks as it is for anything else. It is surely bizarre that if we buy a bottle of juice, we get a range of calorie, ingredient and nutritional information, yet if we buy a juice and vodka ready-to-drink product, we will usually not get any of the same information. Similarly, alcohol-free beer and wine must display calorie and nutritional information, yet alcoholic beer and wine does not have to.

Covid-19 has reminded us all of the need to take seriously the impact of diet and lifestyle on our physical and mental health. As we know that alcohol damages health and causes harm, it is inexplicable that alcohol products face less regulation than fruit juices and fizzy drinks, so the Government’s consultation is timely and important.

I want to press the Minister to go further with the consultation than calories, nutritional information and ingredients; it must consider health information as well. The majority of the public agree and want to know what is in their drinks. Opinion polling conducted for the Alcohol Health Alliance shows that 74% of people want ingredients on alcohol labels, 62% want nutritional information, including calorie content, and 70% want health warnings.

There is a strong case for displaying calorie information on alcohol labels. For those who drink, alcohol accounts for nearly 10% of their daily calorie intake. Around 3.4 million adults consume an additional day’s worth of calories each week, yet 80% of the public are unaware of the calorie content of the most common alcoholic drinks.

Alcohol harm is also poorly understood by drinkers. Only one in five people know the drinking guidelines, and only one in 10 can identify cancer as a health consequence of alcohol. We have warnings on cigarettes that tobacco can cause cancer, so why is similar information missing from alcohol?

I would like to quote one person with lived experience, who described the lack of health information to me like this:

“I knew little of how many recommended units per week, I knew nothing about the nutritional value, I could tell you how many calories were in a Mars Bar but not the glass of Merlot I was drinking. I knew nothing about the long-term health implications. If I buy a pack of cigarettes I am told they are highly addictive and I am told with every pack what health implication there could be. They are now behind a shutter in the shop – but alcohol? Nothing. I near lost my life to alcohol and the lack of information and regulation makes no sense to me”.

Alcohol labels are an effective tool to change that situation. A study in Canada showed that consumers exposed to health warnings on labels were three times more likely to be aware of the drinking guidelines and were also more likely to know about the link between alcohol and cancer.

A number of alcohol products voluntarily incorporate unit alcohol content per container, a pregnancy logo or message and active signposting to drinkaware.co.uk. I am grateful to the producers who contacted me ahead of this debate to share updated labels that now include calorie and nutritional information. One of the UK’s biggest pub chains has already taken that step and is providing calorie labelling for all alcoholic drinks on their menus. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming, in answer to my written question, that alcohol sold in licensed venues will also be part of the consultation.

If someone pops into their local supermarket and takes a wander round the booze aisle, it is abundantly clear that there are huge inconsistencies in alcohol packaging. That hit-and-miss approach is just not good enough. It is time to put it right and standardise the approach, as we have done with food labelling. Even on the products that did carry chief medical officer guidelines and nutritional information, there are varying degrees of clarity and visibility.

In their report “Drinking in the dark: How alcohol labelling fails consumers”, Alcohol Change UK and the Alcohol Health Alliance recommend that:

“The UK Government and devolved administrations must give a new or existing independent agency appropriate powers to…enforce what appears on alcohol labels, working in the interests of public health and consumer rights and free from influence and interference from corporate interests.”

I support that recommendation and hope that the Minister will consider it in the consultation, when it gets under way.

Sir Ian Gilmore, a leading figure in Liverpool’s fight against alcohol harm and chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said:

“Alcohol labelling in this country is…not fit for purpose if we wish to build a healthier society. The public must be granted the power to make informed decisions about their health by having access to prominent health warnings and information on ingredients, nutrition and alcohol content at the point of purchase. The industry’s reluctance to include this information on their products suggests profits are being put ahead of people’s health.”

Ahead of this debate, I received a letter and information from the Portman Group, the alcohol industry-funded social responsibility body and regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and promotion in the UK, and I am grateful for that. The Portman Group supports the consultation and its intention to provide consumers with more information on calories, the chief medical officer’s lower-risk guidance and drink-driving. It said that

“we believe this can be done most effectively on a voluntary basis”.

It is encouraging to hear some industry support for the consultation and I look forward to further discussions with it, but with alcohol-specific deaths at their highest on record, it is surely time for a proper review of how the industry is regulated and held to account.

The regulation of alcohol marketing in the UK is fragmented and largely self-regulating. Under the current set-up, the Advertising Standards Authority, funded by the advertising industry, Ofcom and the Portman Group, funded by the alcohol industry, all play a role in regulating marketing, from TV advertising to sponsorship deals to packaging. That is surely ripe for review, to consider how a new model and a new alcohol industry regulator could be made more accountable to the public and be fully independent of the alcohol industry.

I hope that the Minister will use her consultation as an opportunity to mandate wider health information on labels, too. This should, as a minimum, include the CMO’s guidelines, pregnancy warnings, drink-drive warnings and cancer warnings, so that we can make informed personal health choices and collectively seek to reduce alcohol harm.

I accept that alcohol labelling is only one small part of seeking to reduce alcohol harm across society. Any progress on improving labelling should be part of a broader strategy: a national, Government alcohol strategy. The last alcohol strategy was formulated in 2012, and, since then, harms have continued to rise. Over the last decade, we have learnt a lot more about the wider health impacts of alcohol, such as the link between alcohol and cancer. The World Health Organisation is clear that policies on the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol are the most effective—policies that have also proved effective in reducing smoking.

What can really be said of attempts to reduce the increasing and worsening harms caused by alcohol misuse? Why is it that evidence-based research and policies are being ignored in this way? The Government’s addiction strategy is under way—it was promised in 2020, but we are waiting for it—and we also await the second part of the Dame Carol Black review of drugs. These are very welcome, but now is surely the time for a full-scale review of reducing alcohol harm across society. A focused alcohol strategy would allow a much broader and fuller understanding of the extent of alcohol harm and the measures needed to reduce it.

As it stands today, the UK has the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths on record. Drug and alcohol addiction services have been pushed outside the NHS into cash-strapped local authorities, decimated by funding cuts and fragmented. There are fewer addiction psychiatrists in training than ever. Alcohol is now 74% cheaper than it was in 1987, and in England there are over 300,000 children currently living with at least one adult who drinks at a high-risk level.

This current trajectory cannot continue and the urgent need for a national alcohol strategy cannot be overstated. In their approach to obesity, the Government have shown a willingness to take bold action to protect the public’s health. The same boldness is now required to tackle alcohol harm. The consultation on the labelling of alcohol products is the first step towards improving transparency and accountability across the alcohol industry, and ensuring an evidence-based approach to reducing alcohol harms. I implore the Minister to get it under way, and I look forward to her response.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate and for the measured way in which he has approached this issue. He set out how we want to move forward, how alcohol has a broader cost—a cost to lives, to people’s health and to society—and how, fundamentally, this is about education; it is about helping people to make informed choices and make the right choice. For that, I thank him.

While the debate focuses on the labelling of alcohol products, I want to start by making a few points on alcohol consumption and misuse, which it is extremely important to address. While the majority of people drink and do so responsibly—I am sure the whole nation will be cheering at the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take the fun out of us all enjoying a responsible drink and getting together with friends and family—we know that there are people who drink at harmful levels, with that alcohol misuse leading to significant harms in not only their lives but the lives of those around them. It has large impacts on society that have a cost to health, to productivity and to quality of life.

Excessive consumption is the biggest risk factor to which early mortality, ill health and disability are attributable among 15 to 49-year-olds in the UK—those are young people’s lives—and is considered to be the third largest lifestyle risk for preventable disease after smoking and obesity. Alcohol harms are not experienced equally across all groups. Those with a lower socioeconomic status show the greatest susceptibility to alcohol harms and have a much higher likelihood of death or suffering a disease relating to their alcohol use, be it cancer, liver disease or a plethora of other things.

In recent years, we have seen an overall decrease in the number of people drinking. However, a review undertaken by Public Health England shows that during the pandemic, we have seen an increase in those drinking at dependent and higher-risk levels. While numbers may have gone down at the more moderate end, we have seen an increase of more than 16% in alcohol-related deaths for the first three quarters of 2020 compared with 2019. During that period we were largely limited to off-sales, because places where we might normally enjoy a social drink were closed.

We know that most people who drink alcohol do so responsibly and enjoy doing it on social occasions, but the covid pandemic has shone a spotlight on the impact of general poor health on our ability to fight off the virus. That is why we need to be aware of the risks of excessive drinking and how much heavier the impact is on those who have risks and challenges in that part of their life. It has underlined the need to take action, which was the thread running through the hon. Gentleman’s speech. We are improving the public health response and addressing a number of challenges, including obesity, smoking and drug misuse, and we will continue to monitor the impact of alcohol during the pandemic and as we come out of it, considering further action in the forthcoming addiction strategy.

Drug and alcohol treatment providers have continued to support and treat people through the pandemic, but there have been challenges. There have been some brighter sparks. I have spoken to people who have delivered group sessions, and it has been easier at times to connect and communicate, but for others, the journey during the pandemic has been a lot more disconnected. At this point in the debate, I would like to encourage, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would, anybody who is worried about their consumption of alcohol to reach out and seek help at the earliest possible opportunity.

Alcohol labelling, which is what we are largely discussing this evening, is an important part of the overall work on reducing alcohol-related harms. The Government believe that people have the right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and the health risks that may be associated with it, to enable them to make informed choices about their drinking and what they consume. As people return to socialising and drinking this summer, it is increasingly important that they are educated not just about alcohol and its harms, but about how they can enjoy alcohol responsibly and have fun with other people in a manner that saves on some of the other costs of drinking too much.

The UK chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines were published back in 2016. The intention is to help people understand the risks that alcohol might pose to an individual’s health and to make decisions about consumption in the light of those risks. The guidelines are based on evidence of risk and benefit, including the most up-to-date international and UK-specific data. The guidelines give a clear recommendation to limit alcohol intake to 14 units a week, to limit daily intake to reduce immediate risk, and not to drink if pregnant or planning to become pregnant due to the effect on the unborn child.

Over the past years, we have worked with the alcohol industry to ensure that alcohol labels reflect the UK CMO low-risk drinking guidelines, and the industry has committed to comply with that requirement. We are monitoring, carefully and closely, the progress that is being achieved. The British Retail Consortium—I would like to congratulate it on this—led the way in this area, with most own brands, such as Marks & Spencer and Aldi, now displaying the CMO guidelines. That shows that it can be done and that some are doing it. We were also pleased that in 2019 the Portman Group, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and its members committed to include the guidelines on their products. We fully appreciate that the pandemic has delayed those plans and that the hospitality industry has been severely impacted, but I would like to think that we can now refocus. I am really looking forward to seeing rapid progress and top premium brands increasingly displaying the guidance on their labels. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Portman Group acts as the socially responsible element of the industry, and what can be more socially responsible than helping to educate people so they can make an informed decision?

Post covid, we know that more must be done to look after our health. However, making healthier decisions without all the information is actually quite a challenge. For people to make informed decisions about the drinks they are purchasing, they need to be able to understand what is in that product and what it means for their health. We know that excessive alcohol consumption can be a contributing factor to obesity. I think the hon. Gentleman totted up the daily figures I am going to give and rounded them up to a week’s worth of figures, which equated to an extra day’s calories. Adults, on average, consume 200 to 300 extra calories per day. Of those who drink, 7% to 8% of that calorie intake comes from alcohol, because it is highly calorific. However, the evidence shows that the public, as he articulated, are largely unaware of those invisible calories. Many adults cannot accurately estimate the calorie content of an alcoholic product.

In 2019, less than half of alcohol brands provided calorie information on labels, so as part of the Government’s latest obesity strategy we are committed to consult on the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol and alcohol sold in the on-trade sector. We hope that the provision of calorie labelling on alcohol will encourage reformulation, because there are market opportunities for lower-calorie versions that will further help adults to reduce their calorie intake from alcohol. This consultation will be launched very shortly.

The Portman Group, as I said, is the social responsibility body and regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and promotion. It operates its codes of practice to ensure that alcohol is marketed in a socially responsible way only to those of 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal to those who are particularly vulnerable to its appeal. The codes are supported throughout the industry, with over 150 code signatories, including producers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and their trade associations. I am absolutely committed, as are colleagues across Government, to working with the industry to address concerns over irresponsible labelling, packaging and promotion allied to labelling, and the concerns that the industry has, because I am sure that it is much easier if everybody is doing a similar thing, and then people can easily and swiftly find the information that they need, as the hon. Gentleman laid out.

[Dan Carden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Churchill]

My goodness—stereo!

[Dan Carden]

As we know of the increasing harms from alcohol across society, which are slightly different from what will be covered in the addiction strategy, and there has been an increased focus on the drug strategy, does the Minister see the argument now for a proper review and strategy to deal with increasing alcohol harms across society?

[Jo Churchill]

Now is a great time to focus on making sure that we enable people to make the healthier choice as the default choice, and that we work to ensure that people have the right information for them. All I am willing to say at this stage is that nothing is off the table. There are a lot of strategies. Rather than making any blanket statement, the important job now is to refocus and to deliver on some of the commitments that we would like to see, and to make sure that the consultation is rolled out so that we can have that dialogue and make sure that we are doing the right thing for individuals but also across the industry.

Covid-19 Update

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

That is close to my heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, and across the UK people have done extraordinary things and worked incredibly hard to deliver this vaccine roll-out. We have been working as hard as we possibly can as a United Kingdom to support the NHS in Wales, including north Wales, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to ensure that the vaccine is delivered as safely and rapidly as possible to all parts of these islands.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is wonderful to see so many people being vaccinated so quickly, and it shows the value of investing in the right people, in the right place, at the right time, and of using our national health service GPs and local public health professionals. The vaccination is not the end of the story. Social distancing will continue to play its part, as will test, trace, isolate and support, and new variants threaten to take us back to square one. Will the Secretary of State learn the obvious lessons from this Government’s failures and successes, put local health teams in charge of test and trace with the proper funding they need, and fix the broken system of support, including the £500 payments and those not entitled to statutory sick pay, as quickly as possible?

[Matt Hancock]

I take all that as a compliment. The £500 payment is incredibly important in supporting people on low incomes, as is the huge roll-out of test and trace, with more than 90% of contacts now identified and contacted by NHS Test and Trace, which is doing a magnificent job. Of course, the roll-out of the vaccine is going rapidly, and this weekend, one in 60 of all adults in the country got a jab, which is testament to that. We are always looking to improve and learn lessons wherever we can, but I am glad that things are making the progress they are.

Family Visits in Health and Social Care Settings: Covid-19

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. This debate matters so much to so many people. Like colleagues, I have been touched by correspondence and have taken to heart so many of the difficult personal circumstances that my constituents have been through in recent months. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing the debate, because I do not think that the issue has had enough attention in the House, especially with so much changing guidance over recent months.

We know the headline coronavirus figures because they are so stark: we are reaching 50,000 deaths in this country. Families are grieving loved ones, and people across the country are losing their livelihoods and facing hardship through no fault of their own. Let us remember that almost 30,000 of those deaths were excess care home deaths in the first wave of the pandemic, when residents of care homes were so tragically failed.

Behind the numbers, there are countless personal stories: families forced apart; special moments with loved ones missed; and the grief of losing family members. Visits to care homes and to health settings are just one of those sacrifices. Visits play a vital role—not just for families, but for ensuring the proper running of care homes and the protection of their residents. The first set of guidance, published on 2 April 2020, stated:

“Family and friends should be advised not to visit care homes, except next of kin in exceptional situations such as end of life”.

In the summer, when restrictions were eased slightly, further guidance was issued for limited visits. The most recent and up-to-date guidance puts the ball in the court of care homes providers, families and local professionals to work together to ensure that visits are covid secure.

In reality, care home visits are a lottery. Relatives tell me that it is still proving difficult for them to secure consistent visits. That lottery means that one home in my constituency facilitates window and garden visits and arranges Facetime and Zoom calls. Another home had facilitated window visits when they were allowed, but found that residents were left upset and agitated as they did not understand why they could not see their family as normal, and Facetime and Zoom calls often led to more confusion and upset. That home now has a designated area so family members can visit during the winter, and has created an action plan to put that in place.

I want to share the words of one constituent, who has kept in touch with me throughout recent months as she has tried to visit her mother in a care home. She wrote to me this week to say:

“I was allowed in the care home on Thursday to see her, poor mum, its heartbreaking see her wither away to nothing. I was not allowed to hug or touch her, she kept getting up from the chair to come to me and I had to walk away and around the table, she was following me. Gut wrenching, all she wanted was her daughter, to feel safe, feel reassured and be with me.”

Of course, people have so many questions that need answering to ensure safe visits. As it stands, some visits are happening, but the practicalities and ability of some care homes means that visits are just not possible and too many families are still being left out. As colleagues will know, Liverpool is now piloting mass testing and I welcome the fact that Liverpool City Council is exploring how we can use the Mast lateral flow testing to support more direct visiting. I encourage the Minister to touch on that point.

Nothing can replace being able to visit a loved one in person, and nothing is more important to the people suffering the heartache of being separated from them week after week, month after month. I implore the Minister to do everything possible—I am sure she will—to ease that pain for my constituents and the millions across the country who have been affected for too long. There is no excuse for the inhumane treatment of care home residents in this country. Care homes need funding, PPE, testing and expert advice to set up safe visiting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate and sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this debate. My thanks also go to all those who have come here today and made such powerful speeches, talking about the really difficult situation of visiting restrictions in care homes. My hon. Friend spoke extremely powerfully on behalf of Jamie, acting as his advocate in this tragic situation. I thank her for discussing this with me in advance of the debate; I am looking into that case.

As many hon. Members have said this afternoon, and as Minister for Care I strongly agree, visiting is incredibly important for those living in care homes. It is hard to put into words how paramount, how crucial, contact with their loved ones is for residents in care homes, but let me offer three reasons. First, for the individual in residential care, it can be what makes life worth living. The chance to see a loved one—a husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchildren or oldest friend—these visits are things to look forward to.

Secondly, visits to see their loved ones are important for family members. I have recently heard about a couple, both in their 90s; the wife is living in a care home and her husband always used to go to see her, but he has not been able to do so for months. This is actually affecting him more than it is his wife, who sadly has much less awareness of the situation due to her advanced dementia. It is affecting him because he is not able to see her. So the visits are important for the family who want to visit as well.

The third reason is the role that families and visitors play in making sure their loved one living in the care home is safe and well—the role they play in their care, in fact. Hon. Members have spoken today about the problem of residents, especially those with dementia, who are deteriorating without the visits they are used to. The advocacy role is also important, as my hon. Friend mentioned.

To step back a moment, the Government’s overall aim is to keep people in care homes safe and well—as safe and well as possible in the extremely difficult circumstances of a pandemic of a virus that is so cruel in in how it affects the old and most vulnerable. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, it is an incredibly hard balance to strike, and I appreciate the way she spoke about that. On the one hand we want to enable visits to care homes, to enable people to have the things that make life worth living, but on the other hand, we know that when covid has got into care homes, when there have been outbreaks, it has been extremely hard for care homes to control it. That we have seen so many deaths of people in care homes is tragic. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; it is a cause of sleepless nights for me and others who are trying to make the right decisions.

In my remarks, I intend to speak first about what has happened, then say where we are now, and finally look ahead. I will do my best to pick up some of the questions and comments from colleagues.

When the pandemic hit us, it is true to say that visits were stopped, other than in exceptional circumstances such as end of life. The problem was so bad and there seemed to be such a risk for care homes that visits were stopped. During that period, I spoke to care workers who really went the extra mile to support care home residents through that time—to try to make their lives still worth living and to have positive moments, and to use technology to keep people in touch.

I am not naïve—I know that having a screen is not the answer to the problem of visiting, but for some people in some circumstances it has enabled more contact between those living in residential care and their families. It certainly does not work for everybody. It is not the whole answer.

That is one reason why, as covid rates came down during the summer, new guidance was published on 22 July to encourage the opening up of care homes and to enable more visiting. It supported local discretion; the director of public health and the local authority would work with care homes to agree a reasonable level of safe visiting, using PPE and social distancing and so on. I was very keen to see care homes opening again. Many people did have the chance to see their family members in care homes during that period. Unfortunately, not every care home managed to open its doors at that point and, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) mentioned, those in tier 2 or tier 3 high-risk areas still maintained strict restrictions on visiting.

As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned, there is a real problem of closed environments. One of the things that visitors do is raise a concern if there is a situation in a care home. She and I have spoken about an issue in her constituency a while ago, which was of great concern. That is why, when we went into the current lockdown, I was determined that we should not return to the situation of the first lockdown, where care homes were closed. I was determined that we should continue what visiting we could safely allow, and continue to have the Care Quality Commission crossing the threshold of care homes to identify and investigate where concerns had been raised. That is why the current visiting guidance is to encourage care homes to enable covid-secure visits, using screens, windows, visiting pods and so on.

Some care homes have been incredibly creative and innovative. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) had a great example of a care home in his constituency. The guidance draws on methods that we have seen care homes using over the last few months, with the aim of getting others to follow suit. It is supported by being able to draw on the infection control fund. We have put £1.1 billion into funding to support care homes with the extra costs of providing covid-secure care.

I absolutely hear the message. This is not where we want to be. I want people to be able to hold hands again, hug again and have the physical contact we all need, which is particularly important for those with dementia and those for whom this whole situation is confusing or frightening. We know it has been bad for their health and wellbeing. Right now, however, to allow such contact goes strongly against the clinical advice I have received.

I have been advised that every single additional person going into a care home takes with them the risk of taking covid into that setting. In some parts of the country, one in 40 people have covid. If there is a care home with 40 beds and each person has a visitor, one of those visitors may well be carrying covid into that care home, unbeknownst to them, because they may well have no symptoms. When it gets in, it can be extremely hard to control. That is why we have taken a cautious approach, but I absolutely want to open up care homes to allow for the kind of visiting that people want. I am looking ahead.

Hon. Members have asked about testing, which will be so helpful in reducing the risk that someone going into a care home is taking covid with them. We have a huge testing programme in place in care homes for staff and residents. Staff are tested weekly, and the vast majority of staff are now undergoing that. That is really valuable in catching covid outbreaks early. Residents are tested every 28 days, and the next step is testing for visitors. A trial will be launched this month in four local authorities in areas of lower prevalence, where the risk is lower. That will launch on 16 November in a range of 30 different care homes both to assess the practicalities of testing and to make sure that we are confident in its safety. That will trial both the polymerase chain reaction—PCR—test that has been used for some time and the newly introduced lateral flow test that can be turned around quickly.

Trialling both will enable us to see which is the best to enable visiting, and we then plan to roll that out more widely across the country in December to see how many visits testing will enable. I am optimistic that that, combined with the lower covid rates that our national self-discipline during the lockdown should achieve, will make it much more feasible to enable more testing. Looking ahead, the prospect of a vaccine that may be effective against covid, alongside testing and a supply of PPE, should put us in a much better position to achieve the level of visiting that we all want.

[Dan Carden]

Mass testing is taking place in Liverpool and many people are hopeful that that will allow for more visits to care homes in the weeks ahead. Will the Minister comment on what talks she has had with Liverpool about that?

[Helen Whately]

I am happy to do that, because I have been looking into that issue as well. The guidance I have been given is that Public Health England and those running the trial want it to take place first in the 30 care homes, which I mentioned. That will enable us to have confidence that those who have had a lateral flow test will be able to visit. There is sequencing to be done, but the issue is at the top of my mind. Lateral flows tests are already being used, and we should make the most of that to enable visiting. I hope to be able to put that more formally in writing in due course.

In the time available, I wish to pick up on a few of the other points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) referred to the 30-minute time limit. I believe that that must be something that the care home in question has chosen to put in place. Our guidance advises that one should book a visit with a care home, but does not stipulate a 30-minute limit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) set out an excellent list of things for me to take forward. Many of them are indeed in train, such as testing and work on the vaccine. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has proposed that care home staff and residents should be at the top of the list for that. He mentioned a reporting mechanism, which I am also taking forward.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) referred to the lottery of visits. On the one hand, we responded to local authorities and care homes when they asked for more discretion and a local say in how we respond to the pandemic; on the other, we can find that in one area there is far more access than in another, so we need to combine allowing local discretion with being able to investigate whether somewhere is not being so supportive of visits. We need to ask what is going on and how can we bring this about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield focused on the situation of those of working age living in a residential care home. As she said, they have been talked about less during the pandemic than those of an older age, but the people of working age living in residential care are absolutely at the top my mind. As we have seen during the pandemic, those with learning disabilities might be at greater risk if they catch covid, and, like those of an older age with dementia, they need family visits and the support, love and advocacy of a family member.

As my hon. Friend also said, the pandemic has shone a light on some of the problems that existed in our social care system before the pandemic. Yes, the pandemic has been hard for social care, but there were problems before. Although the vast majority of care homes have provided wonderful supportive care—indeed, loving care—for those who live in their buildings, some have sadly let down those they care for. We must continue to identify, intervene and prevent cases where there is neglect or, worse, the abuse of those living in residential care.

We are in the thick of a pandemic that has made life so hard for those living and working in the social care sector. We have to step forward, get on the front foot and really achieve the social care reform that everyone has been crying out for, for so long. This is an, “If not now, when?” moment. We will seize this moment not only to support social care through the pandemic, but to bring about a system of social care where we can hold our heads up high and be happy for the care of our loved ones, our friends and family, or indeed for ourselves, should the time come when we need it.

Covid-19 Update

Dan Carden Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

As a Cheshire boy myself, of course I talk to my hon. Friend, as I do to colleagues right across the country. Warrington is close to my heart; my grandfather used to live next to the golf course in Warrington. The hospital there is a very good hospital, but it is under strain. We are making sure that the whole region supports the hospitals that are under strain with covid admissions, which I am sure my hon. Friend would welcome and which is, of course, one of the advantages of having our great NHS.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

The whole country knows the perilous situation facing the city of Liverpool and the north-west region. People out there are very worried—not least the people who were officially shielding previously. Will the Secretary of State say what the latest scientific advice is, and may I call on him to reintroduce that advice and, with it, financial support?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. On Tuesday this week, we set out the details of the approach we take to clinically extremely vulnerable people in this second phase. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of that, and he might want to take up the offer that I can make to him of a meeting with the deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries, who leads on that programme.

Local Contact Tracing

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is very difficult to convey the real strength of feeling across Liverpool at the utter failure of this Government on care homes, PPE, and test and trace. Constituent after constituent has come to my office with heartbreaking stories. One was sent to south Wales on a 70-mile journey, two-and-a-half hours in the car with an autistic child, only to find that the test and trace centre had closed for the day because it had run out of tests. The petrol cost them £40 that they simply did not have.

The anger and frustration are not just at the fact that the response is failing, but that it is failing because the Government refused to enable and invest in local authorities and public health teams, and instead chose to pump billions into scandal-ridden Government contractors that have a record of failure after failure. Under the cover of this pandemic, billions of pounds of public money has been handed to faceless corporations, including Tory-linked firms, without competition or transparency, and without democratic accountability—or any accountability to the public, for that matter. It is money that should have been invested in our national health service and that should have left a legacy for the British people by building up the properly funded public services we can all rely on in the future, but instead it was siphoned off.

The most egregious example is the eye-watering £12 billion of public money handed to private companies, including Serco, for this failing test and trace system. The failures of Serco are well documented so I will not repeat them, but when I asked the Government what penalties will apply to private sector companies that fail to meet the terms of their contract, the answer came back and it was clear: none whatsoever. In fact, Serco is being rewarded for its failure with more and more lucrative contracts. The cronyism is well documented as well. Conservative Baroness and business executive Baroness Harding was appointed as the head of Track and Trace. The Serco chief executive officer is the brother of a former Tory MP, and Tory MPs are on the boards of companies winning contracts. If we have a problem with any of this, why not take it up with the Government’s anti-corruption champion—Dido Harding’s husband and a Tory MP? The whole thing stinks. This Government’s incompetence, cronyism and ideological obsession with outsourcing and rip-off privatisation have undermined our NHS and put lives at risk.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have one of the biggest systems of tracking and tracing in the world. The idea that I sometimes get from people in this House is that, somehow, it is not one of the biggest systems in the world or one of the most effective in the world. I get that in this House, but I do not get it when I talk to my international colleagues. They ask me, “How did you manage to build this capacity so fast?” That is the truth of it.

Of course we need to continue to build it and to make sure it is continuously more integrated into the local communities, who can often go to reach the contacts that the national system finds it hard to reach. However, to argue that the enormous system that is working so effectively, with so many brilliant people working on it, is at the root of this challenge is, unfortunately, to miss the big picture, which is that, sadly, this virus passes on—until we have a vaccine or a massive testing capacity that nobody yet has, this virus passes on through social contact and that is, unfortunately, what we need to tackle in order to get this under control.

Let me make a point about the numbers. In the first peak, about 8% of people caught covid and 42,000 people died. If we do not have the virus under control, even with the better survival rates we now have, thanks to both drug discoveries by British science and improvements in clinical practice, those figures will multiply. In addition, harder economic measures would then inevitably be needed to get it under control and they would be needed for longer. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, want our economy back on full throttle, we need to keep this virus in check.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Yesterday, in his call with Merseyside MPs, the Health Secretary was asked about a circuit breaker lockdown and he did not say that SAGE had recommended that three weeks ago. Is that the case? Will he now publish the full scientific evidence for a circuit breaker lockdown?

[Matt Hancock]

The SAGE advice that Ministers receive is, of course, published; we have had great debates in this House about that and it is published. We make decisions that are guided by the science, taking into account all the different considerations we need to look to.

Budget Resolutions

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

To be absolutely clear, the Chancellor gave the impression yesterday that there would be no departmental cuts, but the Resolution Foundation has said that, although some Departments will be protected, others will have a 3% cut as a result. I call that continuing austerity.

Ending austerity is about more than that; it is about ending and repairing some of the damage that has been inflicted on our society and, yes, has undermined some of the social fabric we rely upon. Yesterday, the Chancellor claimed that this was a “turning point”. It is, but not in the way he suggested. This is not the end of austerity, but it is the beginning of the end of the dominance of an economic theory and practice that has wreaked havoc on our communities. People no longer believe the myth that austerity was necessary. They are seeing this Government hand out £110 billion in tax cuts to the rich and corporations while their services are being cut and their children are forced into poverty.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Liverpool’s local authority will have had 64% of its budget cut by 2020. Would not a reversal in austerity mean its budget being reinstated?

[John McDonnell]

We are currently seeing local councils—the first wave has been Conservative—virtually going into administration. That must say something about the impact of a 50% cut in local government funding over the last eight years.

People no longer accept the trickle-down economics that has gripped the Tory party for four decades.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The party that is in denial is the Labour party, which, in 2006, passed the legislation through which subsidiaries could be offered. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, perhaps he should listen to NHS Providers, which says:

“It is…inaccurate and misleading to say that the establishment of wholly owned subsidiaries is a new phenomenon or being pursued to avoid VAT, privatise the NHS, or to reduce terms and conditions for NHS staff.”

Labour Members should stop scaremongering over legislation that their party actually passed.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the level of public satisfaction with the social care system.

[The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)]

Over the last three years, about 65% of social care service users have been extremely or very satisfied with their care and support in England, and 81% of adult social care providers are rated good or outstanding.

[Dan Carden]

Since 2010, Government funding for Liverpool City Council has been cut by 64%, or £444 million in real terms and, given that 90% of properties are in bands A to C, our ability to raise money locally through council tax is at the bottom end of the UK average. We need integrated health and social care, but a departmental name change will not do it; we need the money locally. When will we see proper reform and proper funding to plug the gap in our most deprived areas?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the integration of health and social care is vital, and I think that the renaming of the Department is a symbol of how seriously the Government take our commitment to it. I am keen to talk to him about funding, given that the figures for Liverpool show that it is raising £7.4 million from the social care precept and has received approximately £21 million in grant from the Government.

Woodlands Hospice, Aintree

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have an Adjournment debate on my local hospice, which is such an important topic. Many people think that a hospice is place where people go to die, but it is actually a place where people go to live. It would not be a debate on a hospice and end-of-life care without reminding ourselves of the words of Dame Cicely Saunders, who is widely acknowledged as the founder of the UK hospice movement:

“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”

When I recently visited Woodlands Hospice in my constituency, that is exactly what I found. Although it may sound counter-intuitive, it was a place brimming with life. Woodlands Hospice is an independent charity situated in the grounds of Aintree University Hospital. It covers a population of 330,000 in north Liverpool, south Sefton and Kirby and Knowsley. The hospice provides 15 in-patient beds with a purpose-built wing. Its wellbeing and support centre, which includes multi-professional assessment days, group therapies, outpatients, complementary therapies and a therapy-driven outreach service, provides services to enable people living with cancer and other life-limiting illnesses to live their lives in a positive and independent way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I asked the hon. Gentleman beforehand whether he would give way, and he said he would. It is important to put this point on record. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who work in hospices, such as Woodlands and the Marie Curie Hospice in Northern Ireland, do tremendous work and are much to be thanked for the tremendous care that they provide, not just for patients, but for families?

[Dan Carden]

I am delighted to agree. This is a great opportunity to thank all those staff and volunteers, wherever they are across the UK.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was describing the excellent work that goes on at Woodlands Hospice, and my constituents benefit from that as well. In addition, the hospice provides “Hospice At Home”, helping people out in the community. The combination of services is vital to supporting the national health service. Does he agree that failing to support hospices, including Woodlands, is very damaging and undermines the national health service?

[Dan Carden]

Absolutely, and I am coming to how the hospice sector is such a key part of our national health service.

It was a privilege to learn about the work of the wonderful staff and, importantly, the volunteers. More than 125,000 people give their time to volunteer for hospices each year. They are the lifeblood of the hospice sector. The Woodlands’ volunteer workforce of over 200 people from all walks of life and all ages add value to the patient experience, while the volunteers themselves get opportunities to develop their skills, avoid isolation and build a sense of community.

Woodlands Hospice must raise £1.3 million, which it tries to achieve with the help and support of communities in my constituency and beyond, but against the backdrop of financial uncertainty and squeezed living standards, that is no easy feat, particularly in more deprived communities such as mine, which have been hardest hit by austerity. I will return to the issue of funding later, but there are a number of ways our community supports Woodlands that do not involve straightforward cash donations: volunteering, undertaking challenge events for sponsorship, holding coffee mornings and—this year, I hope—becoming a friend of Woodlands via the new membership group scheme, which I will be taking up myself as soon as it is operational.

The support for Woodlands shown by my constituents illustrates how dearly we hold the care it provides. All Members here know how much their constituents value the care provided by hospices in their own local areas. That is what inspired me to call this debate tonight—to highlight the value of hospices as an essential part of the healthcare economy and to look at sustainable funding for hospices around the UK, particularly in the more deprived areas. It is right that those in more deprived areas, who will struggle to raise funds, receive more statutory funding.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Like him, I recently visited Woodlands, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that the NHS funding that Woodlands receives is vital to its long-term sustainability and that we are seeking assurances from the Minister that at the very least it will be maintained in the future?

[Dan Carden]

I absolutely agree. I hope that this debate will focus people’s eyes on the hospice sector across the UK and at Woodlands, where we need to ensure viable funding, and also funding that is longer term and better planned. Pressure needs to be taken off hospice managers as they plan the kind of care they provide for our constituents.

People who face progressive life-limiting illnesses require different levels of care. Apart from care and treatments specific to their conditions, they are likely to have what is often called palliative care, particularly as they approach the end of their lives. Death is a natural part of life. We will all die eventually, and most deaths—around three quarters—are expected, so the majority will require some form of palliative care, and everyone deserves to be able to end their life in comfort and dignity. That principle should be central to any civilised society.

There is, I am sure, agreement across the House on the importance of palliative care. It is not a bonus or extra, but an essential part of a good healthcare system. The hospice sector supports around 200,000 people with terminal and life-limiting conditions in the UK every year. This amounts to more than four in 10 of those estimated to need expert end-of-life care. Hospice care is free for everyone and provided for however long it is needed, be it days, weeks or even months. More than 40,000 people in the UK receive bereavement support from hospices each year.

Hospices support people with a wide range of conditions, including cancer, motor neurone disease, cardiovascular disease, dementia, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease—to name just a few—and they are increasingly supporting people with multiple life-limiting conditions. Most hospice care is provided while people are in their own home, but it can also be provided in a care home or at the hospice itself as an in-patient. It is a style of care rather than something that necessarily takes place just in one building. Hospices also aim to feel far more like a home than a hospital.

Outcomes are difficult to assess, and of course most patients do pass away, but it is worth remembering that many do not. A gentle, dignified, reflective and peaceful death with 24/7 expert care and surrounded by loved-ones is something that cannot be measured by traditional means, but we can measure the value in the appreciation and wellbeing of the patients and families helped through their bereavement. When I visited Woodlands, I was delighted to meet people who had long and happy associations with the hospice, had made friends there and still visited regularly for support with their health, but also to keep in touch with staff and friends.

It is also clear that NHS pressures mean increased pressures on hospices.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for outlining the work of the hospice movement. Does he agree that the values and ethos of the movement are deeply ingrained in communities throughout Merseyside? Willowbrook Hospice in St Helens, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary, is a good example. But hospices should not have to rely on the generosity of our constituents: they need statutory funding, because they are an integral part of social care.

[Dan Carden]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention.

Britain’s older population is set to increase sharply in the next few decades. The number of people aged 85 or over is expected to double in the next 20 years, and the number of people aged 100 or over is set to increase by more than eight times by 2035, to more than 100,000. The number of adults with life-limiting conditions is also on the rise. Everyone deserves high-quality, compassionate care at the end of their lives.

In recent months we have again witnessed the impact of severe winter pressures on the NHS, which has left hospitals buckling under unprecedented demand. Most people in the United Kingdom—just over half—currently die in hospital. Hospitals are amazing, life-saving places, and I pay tribute to all the staff who keep our NHS running at such difficult times. It is our country’s greatest achievement.

The hospice sector plays a vital role in providing care for those who no longer respond to curative treatment, so that patients who have no clinical need to be in a hospital bed can receive specialised and personalised care provided by a hospice multi-professional team. That also frees up hospital beds for those with acute care needs. A good hospice is a perfect example of good health and social care integration. We need a joined-up approach by the NHS, social care, the community and the voluntary sector. I welcome the Government’s decision to bring social care under a departmental umbrella, and I hope that the Minister will reassure me that hospices too will be recognised as a crucial part of the care system as a whole.

On average, adult hospices in the UK receive a third of their income from the Government, although the amount received by individual hospices varies widely. The rest comes from community fundraising, grant applications, hospice charity shops, lotteries and investments. According to Hospice UK, collectively charitable hospices in the UK need to raise about £1 billion a year from their local communities, which amounts to about £2.7 million per day. In a period of stagnant wages, and with national income distributed unevenly, that is a constant challenge, and the fact that it affects different areas and regions differently must be taken into account. Hospices rely on NHS funding contributions, and need assurances that those will continue even in the challenging financial climate that the NHS currently faces.

Some hospices have agreements in place for multi-year funding, but many are reliant on year-by-year decisions on funding levels, and that requires constant planning by hospice managers. NHS funding needs to be on a more committed and sustainable basis to allow for planning and development, and to enable staff to devote more of their time and energy to doing what needs to be done in relation to patient care. Of course, in more deprived areas, such as the communities in north Liverpool, the need for statutory funding is even greater. The fundraising opportunities that are available in the catchment areas of individual hospices can be very limited. Deprivation also means more complex health needs among the population that hospices serve. All too regularly, I see people dying younger, people dying from addictions, and people dying from diseases that are linked directly to poverty.

The complexity of funding for hospices creates further organisational difficulties for management and staff. Commissioning and contracting arrangements are still causing issues: nationally, a third of hospices are now working with four or more commissioners. Woodlands, for instance, covers a number of clinical commissioning groups, and requires each CCG to maintain or increase funding each year just to stand still. When funding decisions are made on a year-by-year basis, simply maintaining funding can take up much time and effort that should ideally be focused on patients and care.

I am sure I speak for the entire House when I say that we are all very grateful for the care that hospices deliver to people and communities across the country. They need ongoing recognition of the value that they provide to the healthcare economy as a whole. Specialist palliative care and end-of-life services need to be proactively included in transformation plans and service developments. The Government’s intentions were set out in July 2016, when they said that

“every person nearing the end of their life should receive attentive, high quality, compassionate care, so that their pain is eased, their spirits lifted and their wishes for their closing weeks, days and hours are respected.”

In order to realise those aims for every person in the UK, we must look at the funding framework as a whole to make it easier for hospices to receive sustainable NHS funding.

Can the Minister address two specific points: what guarantees are there that as pressures increase on NHS budgets, statutory funding to hospices, especially those in more deprived areas with the specific health problems affecting poorer communities, will be protected, and what is the Minister doing to encourage longer term funding models—multi-year agreements—so that hospices can plan better and care better? The people-centred care that responds to complex and changing needs provided by hospices like Woodlands is invaluable, and I believe every Member will want to do all we can to support the work they do across our constituencies.

I want to finish by paying tribute to the wonderful staff and amazing volunteers who make Woodlands the wonderful life-affirming place that it is, as well as thanking all those who give up their time to volunteer in hospices across the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Yes, I am delighted that the local hospital of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) got £2.8 million in the Budget, but I am disappointed that he did not feel able to issue a press release to his local press. I have much enjoyed debating with the hon. Gentleman over the years, but the difference between me and him is that although we both want to find extra money for the NHS, he would do so by hiking corporation tax, which would destroy jobs, whereas Government Members want to get money into the NHS by creating jobs, which is what we are doing.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for social care.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

Councils in England will receive an additional £2 billion for social care over the next three years, as announced in March 2017. The Government have given councils access to up to £9.25 billion more dedicated funding for social care over the next three years as a result of measures introduced since 2015. This means that, overall, councils are able to increase spending on adult social care in real terms in each of the next three years.

[Dan Carden]

Last week’s Health Survey for England revealed that older people in more deprived areas, such as my own constituency of Liverpool, Walton, are twice as likely to have unmet social care needs and our NHS is left picking up the pieces. When will this Government stop passing the buck and bring forward concrete plans on proper investment and reform to end the national scandal that is our care system?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The entitlement to care is completely enshrined in the Care Act 2014, so if needs are not being met, there is a statutory obligation that can be enforced. On the long-term solutions, obviously, we have put in additional money to sort out the short-term funding pressures, but we need to have a long-term and more sustainable deal with which to meet our obligations for social care, which is why we are bringing forward a Green Paper next year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will participate in that debate.