New Hospital Programme Review

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am grateful, as always, to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. Labour was prepared to make all sorts of promises in opposition to win power—it promised not to raise taxes on working people, it said that it would not cut the winter fuel payment, and it promised to deliver the new hospital programme—but just as working people, pensioners, farmers and businesses have found, this is a Labour Government of broken promises. They have cynically betrayed the trust of the British people.

The Secretary of State and the Chancellor travelled the country to meet candidates who were promising a new hospital in their local area. In fact, despite my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) calling them out in this very place in May last year, warning that Labour had said in the small print of its health missions that it was planning to pause all this capital investment, the Secretary of State was quoted in the Evening Standard in June last year to have said:

“We are committed to delivering the New Hospitals Programme”.

Those are seemingly hollow words now that those hospitals are at risk, with the investment and upgrades they deserve pushed back potentially to start in some cases as late as 2039. Voters put their trust in the Labour party to deliver on its promises, yet today they have been let down.

In response to claims that that is perhaps because of Labour’s economic inheritance, that simply does not reflect reality. Before the Secretary of State warms to the theme of the mythical £22 billion black hole, he will know that the Office for Budget Responsibility has simply failed to recognise that figure. Let us also be clear that, due to the Labour party and the Chancellor’s financial mismanagement at the Budget and the rise in gilts, the BBC recently estimated that the cost of borrowing could be £10 billion higher over this Parliament. Just imagine what the Secretary of State could have announced today if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not caused that.

To govern is to choose: what to spend money on, what to invest in, and what not to invest in. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the Darzi review highlighted the need for more capital investment in the NHS, yet he has decided not to prioritise the delivery of these new hospitals in a rapid fashion. He will also know how the Treasury allocates funding, with cash earmarked to the end of a spending review period but not going across it until that comprehensive spending review formally concludes—that is what his Government are now doing.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), was very clear about the £20 billion anticipated in the next CSR to fund this. Let me be clear: we prioritised the delivery of these new hospitals, as my right hon. Friend did in his statement on RAAC on 25 May 2023, setting out the Government’s commitment to fund them. This Secretary of State has not replicated that.

We had a clear plan, with that funding commitment to be formalised at the CSR, to approve, build and complete new hospitals to a definition akin to that used by Tony Blair when building new hospitals, which were already being designed to a standardised approach with modern methods of construction. The Secretary of State has put that progress at risk. Will he confirm that in his CSR discussions with the Chancellor of the of the Exchequer about the capital departmental expenditure limit—CDEL—allocation for his Department, he will prioritise the new hospital programme? When will the Secretary of State set out to local people in each area exactly when construction will start? I declare an interest: University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust serves my constituents. In each case, when will the doors actually open?

If the Chancellor fails to get the economy growing and starts looking yet again for cuts to fill the hole that she created with her Budget, will the Secretary of State rule out any further delays? What is his assessment of the effect of his lengthening the programme’s timescales on costs, given inflationary pressures? Are all other previously approved capital projects and programmes safe from review? Can he possibly update the House—via the Library if not here—on his latest assessment of the impact of RAAC in those hospitals, which rightly he is continuing to prioritise?

Today’s announcement will come as a bitter blow to trusts, staff and, crucially, patients, who believed the Labour party and will now be left waiting even longer for vital investment. Yet again, before the election, they talked the talk, but patients lose out when this Government fail to deliver. In yet again kicking the can down the road, as is increasingly their habit, they have sadly betrayed the trust of the British people.

[Wes Streeting]

This weekend the Leader of the Opposition said that she will be honest about the mistakes of the Conservative Government. It seems that the shadow Health Secretary did not get the memo. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about showing some contrition, she might want to start here. In 2020 the Department of Health and Social Care requested funds from the Treasury to rebuild the seven RAAC hospitals. That request was denied, setting back the necessary rebuild of those hospitals by years. The shadow Secretary of State will remember this, as he was a Minister in the Department at the time. Which of his colleagues was a Treasury Minister when it blocked the rebuild of the RAAC hospitals? The Leader of the Opposition. That is her record. She should apologise.

Once again, like the arsonist returning to the scene of the crime to criticise the fire brigade for not responding fast enough, the Conservatives have the audacity to come here and talk about a failure to deliver, when promise after promise was broken. The shadow Secretary of State was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who had to come in to clean up the mess caused by Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. That is what crashing the economy looks like. They still have not had the decency, even under new leadership, to apologise.

If the shadow Health Secretary genuinely believes that all these projects could be delivered by 2030—the commitment in the Conservatives’ manifesto—I invite him to publish today their plan for doing it. How would he ensure the funding, labour supply, building materials and planning to build the remaining projects in the next five years? Which capital programmes would he cut? Which taxes would he increase? He knows as well as anyone that those are the choices that face Government.

While he is doing that, can the shadow Health Secretary tell us what he can see that the National Audit Office, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the eyes in my head cannot see? What was the Conservatives’ plan past March, when the money runs out? What taxes would they have raised? I wonder what capital projects they would have cut in order to invest even more than we are in hospital buildings—the biggest capital investment since Labour was last in office.

While he is answering those questions, the shadow Healthy Secretary might want to reflect, with the shadow Cabinet and with Members on the Benches behind him, on the other messes that this Government are having to clear up. As I look around the Cabinet table, I see an Education Secretary dealing with crumbling schools, a Justice Secretary without enough prison places, a Defence Secretary dealing with a more dangerous world, a Transport Secretary having to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and a Deputy Prime Minister building the homes we need—in short, dealing with multiple crises of the Conservatives’ making. There is a massive rebuilding job to do in Britain, and we are getting on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I will say it, because no one else has: many happy returns for tomorrow. I genuinely thought that you were in your mid-30s—that the Secretary of State was in his mid-30s.

[Edward Argar]

And Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

She’s happy with that!

Health and Social Care: Winter Update

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

As ever, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. May I join him in saying that our thoughts are with the nurse in Oldham who was so viciously attacked? Like him, we wish her a full and speedy recovery. May I also echo his words of gratitude to NHS and social care staff for all they do to help and support patients and our constituents?

We last heard from Ministers on winter pressures just before Christmas. Yet, as the Secretary of State has set out, the situation has continued to grow more severe. We have all heard about those pressures in the media and from patients, constituents and staff. Indeed, I will take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who I know has been on the frontline and has, I suspect, seen those pressures—the unacceptably long waits in A&Es for ambulances, and corridor care and its impact on patients—at first hand. When someone calls an ambulance, they need to know that it will come, but it cannot if it is sitting in a hospital car park. At my local hospital in Leicester, for example, over 36% of ambulances handing over had a one hour-plus wait, and I am sure that that is replicated around the country.

The Secretary of State highlights that the number of patients in hospital with flu is triple what it was a year ago, yet it appears that the rate of flu vaccine uptake for over-65s, at-risk groups and healthcare workers is lower than last year. He wants more people to be vaccinated, and I share that view, but will he set out in more detail what he is doing to further drive vaccine rates and ensure that vaccines are available for all those who need and want them?

As the Secretary of State said, more than two dozen hospitals declared critical incidents last week. Although I welcome the fact that the vast bulk of those incidents have been stood down, will he set out what support and additional resource is being offered not only to hospitals that have reached the point of declaring critical incidents, but to others that continue to face pressures?

Last year, the Government provided additional funding for hospitals and social care to boost capacity and, vitally, the number of beds in hospitals, as well as to tackle delayed discharges. Will the Secretary of State set out in more detail what he is doing in a similar vein? Will he update the House on how many people currently in acute settings are fit for discharge but have not been discharged for a variety of reasons?

The Secretary of State mentioned pay, and said that he had negotiated a deal. I say gently to him that what he did was not negotiation but capitulation to an inflation-busting pay rise.

None of these pressures comes as a surprise to me or to the Secretary of State. He was open and candid, as he often is, in acknowledging that there would be a winter crisis this year. NHS England directors were warning that they did not have the resources needed to surge capacity or increase social care packages now, which the Conservative Government provided in previous years. The royal colleges said that nothing had been done to mitigate a winter crisis, and NHS organisations said that they needed more support to prevent ambulance delays, overcrowded A&Es and people being stuck in hospital beds because of a lack of community and social care. He knows—we have spoken about it before—the importance of flow from ambulance to A&E, and from A&E to a bed or to discharge. What extra steps is he taking to increase the number of care packages now rather than in the future, and will he consider allowing community hospitals, such as mine in Melton Mowbray, to play a greater role in providing care to local communities in order to ease pressure on acute settings?

Those concerns were all raised in September and October. My predecessor as shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), asked about them, yet the Secretary of State failed to provide an update to the House until Ministers came to the House just before Christmas. Indeed, I recently asked a named day question about when the Secretary of State started chairing his weekly winter preparedness meetings. Despite, one hopes, a quick look at his diary giving the answer, I received a holding answer. I only got the correct answer after that holding answer had been sent to me, stating that it was in December. Can he say on which date in December the first of those meetings was held?

Before Christmas, I and the Conservatives called for a winter-specific bed increase plan. We still have not had one. Will the Secretary of State set out what he is doing to increase the number of beds and the amount of capacity now?

While the Secretary of State talks the talk, he has not done the work ahead of this winter. Will he now reassure patients and staff that he will urgently boost capacity, resources and support to ensure our constituents get the care they need when they need it?

[Wes Streeting]

Where to begin, Madam Deputy Speaker? The shadow Health Secretary does a really good line in diagnosing the problem as if these are somehow new facts to him, or to the country. In fact, one does not have to be a Minister of long service in this House, or indeed a Member of long service, to remember that only a short matter of months ago, the shadow Secretary of State was a Minister in the Department. Time and again, he asks questions about the state of the crisis and the challenge in the NHS without showing a shred of responsibility for that crisis, which he played a part in creating.

It is not just the shadow Secretary of State but every one of his predecessors who had a hand in creating the situation that Lord Darzi spelled out: underinvestment and botched reform. It is the situation we see today, with pretty much every part of our health and care services—be it primary care, community care, mental health services, secondary care or social care—under extraordinary and historic pressures. It is all very well criticising from the Opposition Benches, but the shadow Secretary of State demonstrates the same pattern of behaviour as his predecessor: acting like the arsonist criticising the fire brigade for not doing enough, quickly enough, to put out the fire they started. It is truly shameful.

I turn to the questions raised by the shadow Secretary of State. On delayed discharges, in December—the latest data we have—12,000 on average per day were medically fit for discharge but unable to be discharged. Bed numbers are broadly the same as they were this time last year: 102,546, versus 102,226 under the previous Government. That actually says something about what we have experienced in our weekly updates: the work that is taking place between health and social care services to improve the flow of patients is having some effect when we take into account our ability to flex bed numbers up and down against the backdrop of higher occupancy from flu, the added challenge of norovirus, and the other seasonal conditions that we see at this time of year.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about vaccination uptake. As I said in my statement, there have been more flu vaccinations this year than there were last year, but he raised the important issue of vaccination rates among NHS staff. Those rates are lower than we would like or expect, and we have to do some work with staff to understand why that is the case and how we can encourage further uptake. As I said, if staff are suffering with flu having not been vaccinated, not only is that a really unpleasant experience for them, it is an unpleasant experience for their colleagues if staff are off sick, and indeed for patients who are waiting longer.

On critical incidents, the shadow Secretary of State asked about the support that is being provided to NHS organisations. NHS England regional teams are working closely with integrated care boards to ensure appropriate responses are in place to address and mitigate the issues identified within each declared critical incident, all of which will have variations. We have also seen NHS England—rightly, in my view—using the critical incident tool proactively to ensure we can provide wider system support to emergency departments that are under particular pressure.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about additional funding for winter. When I was shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, I was very clear about my cynicism regarding the pattern of behaviour we saw from our predecessors. Year after year, they would arrive in the middle of winter—often after the winter peak—with a gimmicky package of last-minute funding that delivered too little, too late without making any real difference on the frontline, all to give the impression that they were doing something to mitigate the crisis in the NHS, in which they played a serious part. I said that we would not do that, and we are not doing it. As soon as we came into office, looked at the books and saw the black hole, the Chancellor released additional funding for the NHS in-year to ensure that it had the resources it needed not to cut back. Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor, the NHS has received more than £2 billion more in-year than it would have received if the Conservatives had remained in power, so we do not need any lectures on funding. Indeed, they continue to oppose the £26 billion we provided for the NHS.

Finally, the shadow Secretary of State accuses us of capitulation to frontline doctors who were out on strike because of the way they were treated by our Conservative predecessors. I just say to resident doctors who are following these proceedings, and to patients who can see the state of the NHS today and wish it were better, that we are now left in no doubt. Had the country kept the Conservatives in power, doctors would have been on the picket lines instead of the frontlines this winter; taxpayers would have continued to pay a heavy price for failure; and patients would continue to pay the price through delayed, rearranged or cancelled operations, appointments and procedures. It is proof positive that even after it was booted out of office, the Conservative party has not listened, has not learned, and is not fit to govern.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members not to walk past when the Minister is replying to a question? Please have regard for each other; this sets a bad example.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of his elective recovery plan mirrored that of Sir Saijd Javid in 2022, but one aspect was different. Our plan explicitly recognised the importance of the workforce being in place to deliver the 9 million extra tests and interpret the results, and it set out proposals to increase that workforce further. What plans has the Secretary of State to boost the workforce in community diagnostic centres specifically, over and above the plans that he inherited from us, to ensure that his elective recovery plan is deliverable?

[Wes Streeting]

The shadow Secretary of State is right to say that we need staff in place to do the job. The additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the Budget is central to the delivery of this plan—I note that he opposes that funding, which is deeply regrettable—but we need to improve productivity as well. That is why the plan sets out steps to free up patient appointments that are unnecessary or of low clinical value, but, crucially, staff time in productivity gains is also important, so as well as making the most of the additional investment, we are making the most of delivering value for taxpayers’ money—

[Edward Argar]

On hospices, while the Secretary of State’s pre-Christmas hospice funding announcement was, of course, welcome, the vast bulk of it was in fact non-recurring capital funding, which cannot be used to help them cover the hiked employer national insurance tax on hospices’ most precious asset: their staff. What steps is he taking to ensure that they receive recurring revenue funding, to enable them to cover the additional costs?

[Wes Streeting]

The £100 million capital investment we set out before Christmas is the biggest boost to hospice funding in a generation, and it comes on top of the £26 million that we announced for the children and young people’s hospice grant. The right hon. Gentleman cannot welcome the investment and keep opposing the means of raising it. Would he cut services or raise other taxes? He has got to answer.

Health and Adult Social Care Reform

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in early sight of his statement, as well for his call last week. Indeed, it was earlier sight than I am used to because I was able to read most of it in the media before coming here, which was not unhelpful.

I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in thanking and paying tribute to NHS and social care staff up and down the country, including those in my university hospitals of Leicester NHS trust, GPs and, indeed, all those in Chorley hospital, Mr Speaker, for all they have done over the festive period. They work full-on day in, day out every day of the year, but they particularly feel the pressure over the festive period when they are not able to spend it with their families, so it is important that we across the Chamber share our recognition of that.

The Secretary of State set out clearly the challenges facing the system. We all know that clinical care, the NHS and social care must work well and as a whole for our health and care system to function, so it is right that his statement addresses both those issues. He also highlighted the challenges we face as an ageing society. We are all living longer, which is a good thing, but that brings challenges of care and more complex needs. Of course, that comes on top of the ongoing challenges of the legacy of the pandemic, which are still with us in many ways.

In his comments, the Secretary of State referred to previous reforms. He opted not to reflect another point in Lord Darzi’s report: his positive remarks about our 2022 reforms, which the Secretary of State knows I took through this House and which laid the foundations on which he is now able to build. Given the serious and cross-party work we have done certainly on social care, I highlight that the challenge is real, and we must address both challenges swiftly.

Before turning to the long term, I turn to the immediate and ask the Secretary of State a few questions about winter and the challenges the NHS is facing. We heard from the Minister before Christmas about the work being done for extra co-ordination and new data, but what extra capacity in beds specifically for the winter period has the Secretary of State put in place to help ease pressure? What additional capacity has he put into A&E? We always recognised that winter is challenging, and we always put in extra resource, support and capacity, so I would be grateful for an update.

I would be grateful for an update from the Secretary of State on the pressure being felt in respect of the “quad-demic” of various challenges faced by the sector. Also, how many critical incidents have trusts declared since 1 December? I would be grateful if he could update us on the pressures being felt and the response to them in the light of the winter weather. In my Melton and Syston constituency in Leicestershire and in many constituencies across the country, we have seen extensive flooding, which has had an impact on our ambulance services in particular.

Turning to reform and elective recovery, I want to support the Secretary of State where he is doing the right thing, and it is important that he is keen to pursue a bold and innovative agenda. It is in all our interests that he is bold, but I call for him to be more ambitious. Those are not words often spoken about him, and I suspect certainly not in No. 10, but I call for him to be bolder and to go further. That is because, as with so much from the Prime Minister with multiple relaunches of previous announcements, what we see here is yet another relaunch of a previous announcement. The difference is the former Secretary of State Sir Sajid Javid’s announcement from 2022 has been reheated and re-served up today. We delivered 160 community diagnostic centres with 9 million additional appointments, and we delivered 18 surgical hubs. How will the Secretary of State’s plan go beyond that? We worked with the independent sector to allow it to be used to help tackle backlogs. We improved technology and the kit available, with £6 billion of investment. The NHS app created during the pandemic was designed and redesigned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and his team to allow for regular updates. Again, it is right that the Secretary of State is updating the app, but how is he radically changing what was already in place? I certainly already receive text updates—as, I suspect, do others—on treatments and appointments, so my challenge to the Secretary of State is this: what is he doing that is fundamentally different?

The key underpinning point in the former Secretary of State’s plan was on workforce, because none of this can be delivered without the staff to deliver and interpret tests. He set out his plan to grow the workforce, and we have record numbers of doctors and nurses, and increased medical school places. What is this Secretary of State’s plan to grow the workforce and deliver on his ambitions?

Turning to social care, the Secretary of State will know—because I have said it publicly—that I will work constructively with him and the commission. He is right to highlight the challenges that Governments of all complexions have faced, including a Royal Commission, two Green Papers and a comprehensive spending review that did not deliver under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Similarly, Theresa May’s reforms did not deliver. We proposed reforms that were due to come in this year, but the Chancellor scrapped them. I think it is important that we look to the future and at how we can work constructively on social care.

I say to the Secretary of State that we will enter into discussions with him and the commission in that spirit, but I challenge him on the pace of his ambitions. The sector is already under pressure, and that has been added to by the national insurance increases, which it does not yet know how it will pay. The real challenge for him is: why 2028? The sector is crying out for a faster pace—be bolder; be more ambitious—and we will work with him to deliver it. It takes a year-plus to deliver a diagnosis—we know the challenges. He has had 14 years in opposition; he should have a plan now.

We will call out the Secretary of State when he gets it wrong or simply re-announces what is already happening, but he is right in his approach to social care and finding a way forward, and we will work constructively for the good of patients and all our constituents. Many of them already feel let down by promises broken by the Labour party over just the past six months, so I ask him not to break this promise, and to work with us, across the House, to deliver the change that our constituents deserve and expect us to work on together to deliver.

[Wes Streeting]

It seems to be the Conservative line across the board now to say, “You’ve had 14 years in opposition, so why haven’t you sorted it all out in six months?” I say gently that the Conservatives had 14 years in government, and it will take longer than six months to clean up their mess. Honestly, their contributions to discussions in this House might have more credibility and a stronger landing zone if they at least acknowledged their part in the deep mess and malaise that they have created over the past 14 years.

None the less, on social care, I very sincerely and warmly welcome the Conservative party’s support for the independent commission. It is important, as a matter of principle, to try to establish in broad terms the level of consensus about what social care should look like and how it should be delivered to meet the needs of older and disabled people in the 21st century, with changing demography, changing challenges, changing pressures and a changing pace of technology, and about the balance of provision between the individual, the family and the state, and the balance of financial contributions for social care between the individual, the family and the state.

Of course, those issues will inevitably be contested across the party political divide from one election to the next, but just as we have had broad consensus on the national health service since 1948, just as we have had broad consensus on state education since Rab Butler’s reforms, and just as we have mostly had broad consensus for much of the past century on how public services should be delivered, so too should we try to establish the same consensus on social care. That is not to say that we should agree on everything, but we should agree on as much as possible, because whether it was Gordon Brown and Andy Burnham in 2010 or Theresa May in 2017, we can see the extent to which party political wrangling, rancour and sometimes opportunism has sunk well-meaning attempts to grasp the nettle of reform.

On the question of pace, I reassure people that in our first six months we have already legislated for fair pay agreements, delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s, and immediately injected £86 million into the disabled facilities grant, with another £86 million to follow from April—£711 million in total over the next year—as well as the increased spending power for local government in the Budget and £880 million for social care specifically. With respect to the people who are saying, “Go faster”, I urge them to bear in mind that we have already done quite a lot in six months. We do not pretend that we have solved all the problems—we have not nearly solved all the problems—but that is not a bad start for a Government who are determined to show that we understand the pressures in social care today and are willing to deliver.

The Dilnot proposals were very good technical responses to a question that Andrew Dilnot was set by David Cameron, but we should reflect on why it was that every single Prime Minister since Lord Cameron, including Lord Cameron himself, did not implement those reforms. There has always been something else in health and social care that has been more pressing and urgent. I am sure that Baroness Casey will consider the Dilnot proposals alongside all the other challenges and potential solutions to the wider issues in social care, but we are determined to respond at pace. That is why the first phase of the Casey commission will report next year, setting out an action plan throughout this Parliament. I hope that we can achieve broad consensus on those actions too.

Turning to the winter situation, the right hon. Gentleman has asked what capacity there is. According to the latest figures, there are 1,300 more acute beds this year than last year. Of course, those figures flex up and down depending on pressures, but the pressures are enormous. The number of beds occupied by flu patients is much higher than this time last year—somewhere between three and four times higher. The number of adult beds closed due to norovirus has reduced in the latest figures, but it is still above last year, when 485 beds were closed—the latest figure is 666. On ambulance responses, we have seen many more call-outs this year. There has been a 3.8% increase in emergency admissions compared with the same period last year, with the highest November on record for A&E attendances. Ambulance response times are nowhere near where we would want them to be because of the enormity of the pressure, which is why I have been out on the frontline, including over the Christmas period. We are not just looking at what we can do to mitigate challenges this year; we are already beginning to plan for next year, because I want to see year-on-year continuous improvement in urgent and emergency care.

I now turn to the challenges on the reform plans we have proposed and set out today. Starting with the workforce, one of the reasons we have emphasised the importance of not just investment but reform is the need to free up the staff capacity that we already have in the NHS to best effect. That means dealing with the number of non-attendances by sending reminders to patients and giving them ease and convenience in rebooking. It is why we are getting rid of unnecessary, low-clinical-value out-patient appointments, with the consent of patients in every case. It is why we are asking general practitioners to do more to manage cases in the community with more advice and guidance, and funding them to do so, working with colleagues in secondary care to ease pressure on hospitals.

Today’s reform plan answers the challenge we have heard from people across the NHS: how do we tackle the elective backlog without doing so at the expense of general practice, urgent and emergency care, community care or social care? The truth is that this is a systemic challenge, and we will only be able to deal with the challenge in the elective backlog by also acting on urgent and emergency care, general practice, community care, and delayed discharges in social care. We are taking a system-wide approach to meeting this essential target.

A number of things are different from under the previous Government. For example, on the deal with those in the independent sector, giving them the stability and certainty of working with this Government gives them the confidence to open and invest in new capital estate and new kit, particularly in parts of the country that are relatively underserved by the independent sector. We have insisted they do that with their own staff and resources, and that they put their money where their mouth is in relation to training new staff to deal with some of those pressures. That is how we will ensure that we will not be taking Peter from the NHS hospital to treat Paul up the road at the independent hospital.

Finally—I am happy to take more questions on the detail of the plan—the shadow Secretary of State asked what is different from 2022? In fact, I think he asked me to commend my predecessor Sir Sajid Javid for his work in 2022. In the bipartisan spirit of the new year, let me commend the work that he and Sir Sajid Javid did in trying to undo Lord Lansley’s disastrous top-down reorganisation, and that was a very good thing to do. There will be a very big difference between this Government and our Conservative predecessors: real delivery, shorter waiting times and an NHS fit for the future.

Winter Preparedness

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of her statement—as I have said before, it is typically courteous of her. I echo the gratitude that she expressed to those in our NHS, and also those in the social care workforce who will be working hard throughout the festive period. As she alluded to, the NHS is already feeling the pressure this winter. We know that winter is always tough for the NHS, irrespective of who is in government, but services are feeling the strain even earlier than in previous years. A tidal wave of flu infections has led to a 70% increase in hospital cases in just seven days, and the national medical director of the NHS has warned of a “quad-demic” of health emergencies as cases of covid, norovirus, RSV and winter flu are all on the rise.

Meanwhile, in October, the longest A&E waits of over 12 hours increased by over a quarter in just one month, reaching the third highest monthly figure since comparable records began in 2010. Of course, all that has come before the cold weather really hits and before more vulnerable pensioners are left in freezing homes, unable to put the heating on after the winter fuel payment was scrapped for a large number. What assessment has the Minister and the Department made of the potential impact of that on hospital admissions this winter?

In government, we recognised that the NHS faces unique challenges in winter. We also recognised, as I know the Minister does from our previous discussions, the importance of flow in the NHS, with all parts of the system working together. That is why last year we provided £200 million to boost NHS resilience specifically during the peak winter months, which was accompanied by £40 million to bolster social care capacity and improve discharges from hospital. That followed the £1 billion announced earlier that year to boost capacity by delivering 5,000 additional beds, 800 new ambulances and 10,000 virtual ward places.

The Secretary of State himself has admitted that there will almost certainly be a winter crisis. There have been warnings from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Nursing and directors at NHS England. Yet in today’s statement, in contrast to the steps we took, we heard a lot about data, meetings and co-ordination, but very little in concrete terms to increase capacity specifically over the winter period. That will give scant reassurance to those working in the system or patients needing the system. In fact, earlier this year, the Secretary of State suggested that there would not be any specific new funding for the NHS to cope with winter pressures.

The Minister will know that I have tabled a number of written questions in recent days, met in many cases by what seems to be the standard DHSC response for named day questions of a holding answer. As the pressure continues to grow, I have a number of specific questions for the Minister while she is at the Dispatch Box. Will the NHS receive more resources specifically to increase bed and A&E capacity this winter? Are there enough hospital beds and ambulances for this winter, or is she taking steps to increase them? As of the 1st of the month, how many people who were medically fit to be discharged had not been, for a variety of other reasons?

I am grateful for the update that the Minister provided on winter vaccinations. What assessment has she made of the supply of the flu vaccine? There are some suggestions that pharmacies and others have run out and are waiting for more deliveries. How many additional 111 and 999 call handlers have been recruited specifically for this winter?

We talked briefly about the need for the system to work as a whole. In that context, what is the impact of national insurance contributions on hospices, social care and GPs? The Secretary of State told the Health and Social Care Committee this morning that hospices would get an update from him before Christmas, but at Prime Minister’s questions in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister appeared to say that it will be after Christmas. Can the Minister clarify that for the House, because it is an important point?

Finally, what meetings has the Secretary of State personally had with Julian Redhead and Sarah-Jane Marsh, the NHS winter leads, and when was the first of those meetings specifically on this subject? I am very happy for him to write to me if that is easier, given the complexity.

As seasonal flu piles yet more pressure on NHS systems, it is more important than ever that it gets the resources and support that it needs. There are many promises of reform, but the NHS needs an immediate capacity boost in beds over winter. So far, the Government have kicked reform into the long grass in favour of yet more consultation, and their preparations for winter have lacked the urgency and focus that patients and NHS staff demand. In government, the Conservatives always put extra support in place to keep the NHS going through the tough winter period, boosting capacity and increasing support. This Government need to get a grip and do the same.

[Karin Smyth]

I will do my best to address that range of questions. First, as even a stopped clock is right once—[Interruption.] Yes, twice. On that basis, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. On correspondence and answers to parliamentary questions, again, the situation we inherited is not satisfactory. I apologise to all Members who are waiting for correspondence—it is something we are taking a grip of. We want to respond positively to questions. The Conservatives did not; we will make sure that starts to happen.

On capacity in the system, again, I remind Members that we came into office in July, which is one quarter of the way through the planning and financial year. We very rapidly looked at the plans that were baked in by the previous Government—I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was in the Ministry of Justice at the time, not the Health and Social Care Department—to see whether they were fit for purpose. We wanted to make sure we brought stability to the system. There are, in fact, more beds currently available in the system than last year. If there is a need to increase capacity due to a likely cold snap, the system is absolutely ready to respond in its usual way. That is why we are meeting weekly.

On meetings with clinical and managerial colleagues at NHS England—who, frankly, I see more often than many members of my own family—I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we started those meetings immediately. I would have to check the exact date, but it was certainly in the summer. I have had fortnightly meetings since September, which, as I said, we can move to monthly meetings, chaired by the Secretary of State. We began getting a grip from day one, knowing that winter was coming, which is why I am monitoring the situation weekly. It is also why we visited the operational centre, to understand in real time what is happening across every single system and every single trust—be that ambulance issues or problems at the front end and in A&E. The one question I do not directly have the answer to is what the daily figures are; I will try to get those figures to the right hon. Gentleman later.

We all know that waiting for discharge to assess is a massive problem. That is why, as I said in my statement, we want to take a grip of the better care fund, to ensure it works better and to stabilise the social care system. I am not particularly versed in issues on supply, so I apologise if that is wrong. We will certainly get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that matter, because we want people to be taking the vaccinations where necessary.

I can confirm that we want an announcement on hospices before Christmas. On winter fuel and its impact, as Opposition Members know, we will continue to monitor the impact of all situations on individuals to ensure they are supported in the community. We urge people to make sure they access pension credit. [Interruption.] I have just addressed that, but if I have missed anything, I will come back to it.

Puberty-suppressing Hormones

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for his courtesy in coming to the House to make an oral statement, which gives hon. Members the opportunity to ask him questions.

When the Secretary of State is wrong, we will challenge him robustly and hold him to account, but when he is right, we will support him. That is responsible opposition. In what he sets out today, he is right, and he has my support for what he is doing. Protecting children is one of the most important priorities that a Health Secretary can have. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), worked tirelessly to do just that. She set out that it was her priority to protect children and young people from risks to their safety from the prescription of puberty blockers, given the lack of an evidence base. I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing the work started under the previous Government, and I welcome his support at the time and all that he has done since, including in his statement on 4 September. I associate myself with the three principles that he enunciated when he opened his statement.

With increasing numbers of young people questioning their gender identity, NHS England, with the support of previous Conservative Health Secretaries Matt Hancock and Sir Sajid Javid, commissioned Dr Hilary Cass to examine the state of services for children questioning their gender. That historic review cut through the noise and ideology to lay bare the clear facts, so that we as policymakers can seek to make decisions based on evidence, safety and biological reality, and create a service that better serves the needs of children, as the Secretary of State set out. In the review, Dr Cass made it clear that not enough is known about the lifelong impacts of using puberty blockers on young minds and bodies to be sure that they are safe, and that the robust evidence base was simply not there. In March, NHS England made the landmark decision to end the routine prescription to children of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. With the support of the then Government, it announced that it was stopping children under 18 from being seen by adult gender services with immediate effect.

As one of the final acts of the previous Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle used emergency powers under section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968 to extend the ban to private clinics selling puberty blockers to young people questioning their gender. It was the right thing to do, and I agree with and pay tribute to her, as I do to the Secretary of State for what he has subsequently done. The safety and wellbeing of children and young people must come above any other concern. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State renewed the order; his saying that he will make the ban indefinite, given the absence at present of an evidence base; and his seeking to better understand and build that evidence base.

I have a few questions that I hope the Secretary of State can offer clarifications on in a constructive spirit. I hope—I think he alluded to this—that he will confirm that he intends to implement the Cass review’s recommendations in full. Of course, support must be available to children and young people who are questioning their gender identity, and that support must be holistic, multidisciplinary and evidence-led. The Tavistock clinic closed earlier this year, and as he set out, three new regional NHS children and young people’s gender services have opened to provide better, tailored gender services for children and young people—again, that is based on recommendations in the Cass review. Can the Secretary of State provide more detail on the delivery of the remaining regional centres, and say what order they are due to open in, so that children and families can see what is happening in their region? Again, that is about putting the best interests of young people first.

Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that these measures will be UK-wide and that he is working in tandem with the devolved Administrations? Will he advise on what progress has been made thus far—I appreciate that it is early days—on further research into patient care and increasing that evidence base? Can he update the House on the steps taken to continue the work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, when she announced to the House in May the decision to work to close any online loopholes to the regulations put in place? Finally, will he commit—I suspect I know the answer to this one—to keeping the House updated in the months and years ahead on developments in this space?

Our children and young people deserve healthcare that is compassionate, caring, careful and led by the evidence. I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s concluding remarks on the need for the debate to be conducted in a respectful and sensitive way, with the needs of children and young people at its heart. We will support measures that protect children, and support him in bringing forward such measures; we want to work constructively with the Government to give the next generation access to the right healthcare to meet their needs. I look forward to working with him in the months ahead.

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has responded to the statement, and for the tone with which he has approached the issue. It is worth everyone bearing in mind that every word of statements in this House, and indeed online, are often hung upon by a particularly vulnerable group of children and young people. Many of them feel afraid about the environment in which they are growing up, as do their families. Establishing an environment in which we can discuss issues with their welfare and wellbeing at its heart is therefore the right way to approach these issues. As I have said many times before—and I am sure the shadow Secretary of State agrees—we need less heat and more light, and we can show leadership together in trying to provide that climate.

I am absolutely committed to the full implementation of the Cass review. The shadow Secretary of State asked about the implementation of new children and young people’s services on gender incongruence. As I said, the north-west London and Bristol services are now open. A fourth service is planned in the east of England for spring next year. We want a specialist gender service in every region by 2026, and of course I will keep him and the House updated on that.

I am working closely with my counterparts in the devolved Governments. I particularly welcome the engagement I have had with my counterpart in Northern Ireland and his predecessor, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who is within my line of sight. I appreciate the way we have been able to work together on this and many other issues. The shadow Secretary of State asked about loopholes. I will keep the matter under close observation and review.

With regard to sanctions, penalties and enforcement, it is worth pointing out that breach of the order is a criminal offence under the Medicines Act 1968. It is a criminal offence to supply these medicines outside the terms of the order. That means pharmacists who dispense medicines against prescriptions that are not valid may be liable to criminal prosecution. It is a criminal offence to possess the medicines where the individual had responsible cause to know the medicine had been sold or supplied in breach of the terms of the order. There are fines and penalties associated with that, including case-by-case and regulatory enforcement by the General Pharmaceutical Council.

We have approached the matter in an evidence-based and considered way, and with the welfare and interests of children and young people at the heart of our decision making. I urge everyone else involved in the provision of health and care to do the same.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I do not always do this, but I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for the tone he has adopted in this debate and for recognising the strongly and sincerely held views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of it. I am also grateful to him for being typically willing to share with the House in support of his points something as personal as what happened to his grandmother. Sadly, it will not surprise him that no one asks me for my ID these days—I will have to take some tips from him on the moisturiser that he uses. [Interruption.] I will ignore the unkind comment that he has just made.

In many ways, this Bill is like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts—indeed, it is good in many parts—and started from a place of good intentions. As the Secretary of State set out, smoking has a huge cost to society and to individuals. We know that smoking is the single biggest entirely preventable cause of ill health, death and disability in this country, and we see in our NHS the impact of smoking every day. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths in the UK each year and is estimated to cost the NHS and social care more than £3 billion a year, including 75,000 GP appointments every month. As the Secretary of State said, almost every minute someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking. It substantially increases the risk of many major health conditions throughout people’s lives, such as stroke, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, cancers, dementia and asthma.

As the Secretary of State has alluded to in the past, it is often people in more deprived areas who have higher smoking rates, lower healthy life expectancy and higher mortality rates linked to smoking. Some 230,000 households are estimated to live in smoking-induced poverty, and children of smokers are three times as likely to start to smoke, potentially perpetuating the cycle. Over 80% of smokers started before they turned 20—many started as children—yet more than half of current smokers want to quit; as the Secretary of State said, three quarters say that they would never have started smoking if they had the choice again. Let me be clear: reducing smoking, giving people the information and support to quit, and helping to protect children in particular are worthy ambitions.

Among all the doom and gloom, there is some positive news: smoking rates are falling anyway. While around 6 million people in the UK smoke, the number of smokers has been falling for decades. In 2023, just 10.5% of people aged 16 and over smoked, compared with 20.3% in 2010, 20.7% in 2000 and 30% a decade before that in 1990. Likewise, the number of children who smoke is falling. While this trend is welcome, it is understandable that there is a strong desire to see continued action to further drive down the prevalence of smoking and tackle the recent rise in vaping among non-smokers, especially among young people, and to protect future generations.

As was evidenced by the interventions that the Secretary of State kindly took from many hon. Members, I am sure that many of us in the House have been alarmed by the surge in youth vaping, which has doubled in the past five years. Despite it already being illegal to sell nicotine vapes to under-18s, a quarter of children tried vaping in 2023. While nicotine vapes can and do play an important part in helping adults to quit smoking, we are clear that children who do not smoke should not take up vaping. The nicotine content makes those products highly addictive, while the long-term impacts of the colours and flavours being inhaled are highly unlikely to be beneficial. Of course, the full effects may not be known for some years yet.

The uptake in youth vaping has been driven in part by the branding and promotion of products clearly aimed at children, with vapes, packaging, descriptions and marketing all designed to appeal specifically to young people. Grown adults trying to quit smoking are unlikely to see the appeal of cartoon characters on their vapes, but of course, children and young people will. Likewise, the bright colours and fruit flavours are far more likely to appeal to children than to those looking to quit tobacco smoking.

For those reasons, the last Government introduced a Bill that primarily targeted our interventions at young people. It would have restricted who could purchase tobacco products without impacting current adult smokers. It sought to tackle youth vaping by restricting flavours, introducing plain packaging and changing how vapes are displayed in shops so that they do not appeal to children. It would also have prohibited the sale of non-nicotine vapes and vaping alternatives such as nicotine pouches to under-18s, just as it is already illegal to sell nicotine vapes to children. In parallel, it would have introduced new fines for rogue retailers in order to tackle the illegal market, seeking to make sure that the law—such as age restrictions on purchasing vapes—was properly enforced.

That approach was targeted at the next generation of young people and aimed to prevent the take-up of smoking and vaping and break the cycle of nicotine addiction before it had even started. That Bill was not about demonising people who smoke or curtailing current smokers’ rights or entitlements in any way. None the less, it had challenging practical implementation impacts.

I have a lot of respect for the public health Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne)—I think that is his new constituency name—and know him well. I hope that when he winds up the debate, he will address some of the points I am about to make. My first point is about the impact on shopkeepers, particularly small shopkeepers, of enforcing and operating within increased restrictions, and the extent to which those restrictions are practically enforceable. In the context of what the Bill sets out to do, how does one avoid the existence of, or an increase in, a black-market economy in vapes or cigarettes?

We introduced our Bill before the general election. Since then, the new Government have introduced a Bill that may have the same name, but is not quite the same Bill that was introduced back in March. The Bill before us today gives the Secretary of State new, or significantly modified, powers under the Health Act 2006. It runs the risk of piling an unknown number of regulations on to retailers through a new licensing scheme, and it creates a whole new registration scheme. The challenge is that right hon. and hon. Members will not be told in detail what those schemes will look like, the specific impact they will have on businesses, or the detailed impact they will have on smoking and vaping rates until after the legislation has been passed. A hefty impact assessment—all 294 pages of it—has been produced. Given that the public health Minister has signed it, I fear he had to read every one of those pages before doing so. However, even with that impact assessment, the detailed impact of the individual regulations that may follow is unclear.

For example, clause 136 amends the Health Act 2006 to give the Secretary of State the power to extend smokefree places to some outdoor spaces. Of course, adults should be mindful and thoughtful about where they smoke or vape to be considerate to those around them, especially in areas with children or vulnerable young people, but the Bill risks giving the Secretary of State expanded powers to expand smokefree areas with minimal oversight. I acknowledge that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used, but as we in this House know, a statutory instrument and the procedures that accompany it are not as rigorous in their scrutiny as primary legislation.

Unlike previous laws, which banned smoking in confined areas such as pubs and bars, the Secretary of State is talking about bans in open spaces where the risks of second-hand smoking may be more limited. Page 64 of the delegated powers memorandum states:

“Under Section 4 of the 2006 Act, the Secretary of State could make regulations to designate additional places as smoke-free provided that they were of the opinion that there was a significant risk persons present in such a place would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke without a smoke-free designation…Section 5 of the 2006 Act gave the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free.”

It goes on to say:

“Clause 136 amends the existing power in section 4 of the 2006 Act by omitting the risk condition.”

I would be grateful if the public health Minister could explain in his winding-up speech—I suspect he will be able to do so—why that condition is being removed. It was there for a reason: to give a sense of proportionality to anything that was done and to ensure that a particular bar had to be met, given the impact. Its removal effectively gives the Secretary of State much greater discretion to do as he wishes at a future date. I note that the Secretary of State has said today that he changed his mind on banning smoking in pub gardens or outside hospitality venues. I know him well, and he is an honourable man, so I take him at his word on that, but there is nothing in this proposed legislation to prevent a future Secretary of State from coming back, consulting and expanding beyond the areas where he proposes to restrict smoking to other venues and settings at a future date. Under clause 136, that could be done without the crucial risk criteria being applied. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point, because it is hugely important. Members are being asked to decide now whether they support expanding smokefree places to an unknown list of outdoor spaces in the future, so it genuinely raises significant challenges and concerns if that gateway is not in place.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. Some 13% of adults in Bracknell smoke, but we know that more than half of smokers would like to give up, so what I and my constituents are listening for is a commitment that his party will back concrete measures to end the public health epidemic of smoking once and for all—or are they just going to wrap up their objections in sophistry?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for most of what he just said. I will address precisely his point in a few paragraphs, but I say to him that my party brought forward legislation in March, which was debated in April, that did not have the mission-creep that I fear the Secretary of State is demonstrating with clause 136 and various other measures in this proposed legislation.

I must also challenge the Government on how they anticipate this measure being enforced. Will members of the public be encouraged to call the police if they see a parent smoking in a prohibited place? If there are no children in a park or playground, will it still be prohibited?

Concerns are also raised by the new licensing and registration schemes. While it is right that we had planned to expand the existing notification scheme to include non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products involved in the supply chain, this Bill goes a number of steps further. The Secretary of State will be able to create a new licensing regime for retailers for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. Over 70% of convenience stores selling vapes and tobacco products are independent shops. How will they fare and how will they be assisted with the layers of added bureaucracy and cost that will be associated with the Bill? Do local authorities, which are already under pressure, have the capacity and additional funding allocated to administer such a licensing scheme in their areas?

Again, my fear is that we are unable to make a fully informed decision about the impact because the regulations will be set out only after the Bill has passed. The impact assessment states:

“A more restrictive licensing scheme would be expected to have a greater impact on public health and a greater economic impact on businesses.”

However, we simply do not know if that is what the Secretary of State has in mind or what the regulations will look like. Likewise, there is no detail on the impacts of a new registration scheme for all tobacco, vaping, nicotine and herbal products, as well as tobacco-related devices.

In the few months that the Government have been in office, they have sadly shown that they are not particularly a friend of business and have broken a number of their pre- election promises. Although I have confidence in the Secretary of State as an individual and as a right hon. Member of this House, I ask him to forgive the cynicism of those on the Opposition Benches over any attempted reassurances from the Government that they will take businesses’ concerns into account as they consult on their plans.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), if a Division is called, in line with the precedent set last time this will be a free vote; each Conservative Member may vote as they choose. The Bill, as I have said, comes from a good intention to keep the population healthy, to ease costs for the NHS and to prevent children from taking up addictive habits that may follow them for the rest of their lives. I support those objectives, but I call on the Minister for public health, when he winds up, to give the reassurances I seek and roll back the additional measures that have been put in place, over and above what we were proposing.

It is important that information is available so that people can make informed decisions and that support is available for those who choose to stop smoking. Adult individuals are best placed to make decisions about their own lives, but we recognise that the same is not true for children. I look forward to the responses from the Minister for public health, which I hope will be constructive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer to be collaborative and constructive in his approach to the legislation.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will briefly, because I have one sentence to go.

[Dr Cooper]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State. As a public health doctor, I am delighted to hear him speak so freely, openly and positively about all the great things that this legislation will bring, but I remain unclear whether he will be voting in support of this generation-defining public health Bill this evening.

[Edward Argar]

That will depend on whether the Minister for public health gives the promises I seek that he will withdraw a number of the measures that the Government have added to the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who will take the Bill through Committee on behalf of the Opposition, and I know that she looks forward to constructive and collaborative engagement with the Minister. I hope he can offer reassurances when he gets up to the Dispatch Box in a few hours’ time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows that every year, irrespective of which party is in government, winter is challenging for the NHS. Possibly, it will be all the more so this year with the potential impact on older people’s health of the loss of the winter fuel allowance by many. What winter preparedness steps has he taken, like previous Governments, to increase A&E capacity and to increase the number of beds this winter, and can he say by how many?

[Wes Streeting]

It is thanks to this Government and the action we have taken that, for the first time in three years, we go into winter without the spectre of national strikes looming over the NHS, and with NHS staff on the frontline not the picket line. It is thanks to the priority this Government have given to prevention that we have already delivered almost 15 million covid-19 and flu vaccinations, alongside the new RSV—respiratory syncytial virus—vaccination to help vulnerable groups for the first time. The shadow Secretary of State mentions the winter fuel allowance. This Government are protecting support for the poorest pensioners to protect them not just this winter, but every winter, and over the coming years the value of the pension will of course rise with the cost of living.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful for that response but, just as my hon. Friends have highlighted in respect of the damaging impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on GPs, hospices and care providers, I fear it was another example of the Government simply not answering the question and not having a plan yet. Either the Government have not done their homework and, as with the impact of NICs increases, they have not thought this through and do not know, or worse, they do not care—which is it?

[Wes Streeting]

This Government are prepared for winter and we are already standing up the operational response to winter pressures. On funding, the right hon. Gentleman was in government just before the general election. Is he saying that his Government did not provide enough funding for the NHS this winter? If not, why not? If he does accept that it is enough money, he will surely welcome the extra investment that the Chancellor is putting into the NHS from next year.

Income Tax (Charge)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to be working once again in health and social care, although a disappointment to be doing it from the Opposition Benches. It is a privilege because, like the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care now, I had the privilege in government of working with the amazing and dedicated people who work in our NHS and in social care up and down the country. It is a pleasure to be back. It is a pleasure to be opposite the Secretary of State, as he now is. I remember our tussles back in the day, when I was sitting over there and he was sitting here.

I am sufficiently fond of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage him not to get himself fired out of a cannon, as he alluded to. Although I will say one thing for it: it would not only draw attention to his day job, but possibly even aid him in his ambitions to secure his boss’s job in due course. In respect of his comments about the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I would only say very gently that she should probably take that as a compliment. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks someone in that way, it probably means that they are somewhat frit of her. I think he will see in the coming weeks and months why that is so.

We have already seen and heard over the previous days of debate that this is unequivocally a Budget of broken promises. Despite the pledges made over the course of the election and the commitments given to the British people, in reality those words meant nothing to the Labour party once it secured the keys to No. 10. Instead, we have seen taxes hiked on working people: the people who provide food security and food every day, our farmers, hit hard by the changes that have been made. We see living standards set to fall and mortgage rates likely to rise. We see taxes up, we see borrowing up, we see debt up, and we see that growth will be down on where it could and should be. Unfortunately, I fear, that pattern of broken promises also applies to the NHS and our social care sector.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on his new appointment. He is obviously very critical of the Government’s attempt to alleviate the appalling financial legacy that his party bequeathed to the nation. Does he support the extra investment for the health service, and is it just the ways of paying for it that he is against? Or is he actually opposed to it?

[Edward Argar]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In his allusion to the Labour party’s inheritance, he missed the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility singularly failed to back up the assertions made about the quantum of challenge the incoming Government faced.

Time and again, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), both in opposition and now as Secretary of State, has promised that any more money for the NHS has to be linked to reform. He has done that again today. The week before the Budget, he said that

“extra investment in the NHS must be linked to reform”.

In September, the Prime Minister himself said:

“No more money without reform”.

They are right on that. The Opposition support that condition, because it is only with reform that the NHS can sustainably continue to look after us for years to come. Yet I fear that this risks being another broken promise. I say to him now that where he is bold and provides genuine reform to benefit patients, he will have our support. Equally, if he bows to internal pressure and backs away from the radical reform that is needed, we will hold him to account.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will make a little progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

I congratulate the Health Secretary on winning round 1 with the Treasury—I look across the Chamber and see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Government Front Bench—in securing extra investment. He has secured more than £22 billion announced for the NHS, but without, as yet, any detailed indication of where that funding will go. I look forward to him returning to the House to set out the detail—I think he said that would be next week. What it must do is genuinely improve outcomes for patients and our NHS, rather than simply be focused on the headline figure of the inputs to it. There are, as yet, no clues as to whether it will be spent on wages, recruiting more staff, medicines or equipment; no clues as to how it will deliver the 40,000 additional appointments that have been promised; and no conditions linking the funding, as yet, to productivity improvements, modernisation or better outcomes for patients.

What we need to hear next week from the Secretary of State is an actual plan. As he mentioned, the right hon. Gentleman became shadow Health Secretary three years ago. I hope that in that time he has had an opportunity to think about what he wants to do and that he will actually set that out to the House next week.

[Joe Powell]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. On the theme of broken promises and capital investment, and in the spirit of a fresh start, I wonder whether he will extend an apology to my constituents who were promised a new hospital under the new hospital programme, which was never funded in any forward-looking Budget document?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he pauses for just a moment, I will turn to capital investment and seek to address his point.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Edward Argar]

I will make a little progress, but then I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

Apart from the press releases and the reviews, where is the action? We need to see where the £22 billion will be spent. What plans does the Secretary of State have for additional investment for the NHS this winter? He knows, as I knew when I was a Minister, that winter in the NHS is always challenging. I look forward to him setting out what additional investment he plans.

[Wes Streeting]

On that point.

[Edward Argar]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in a second. Nice try, Secretary of State.

Is the right hon. Gentleman directing where that NHS funding goes himself, or will it be for his officials or NHS England to set the priorities for that, and who will be held accountable for ensuring that it is prioritised in the right places?

[Paul Holmes]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State. Does he share my concern that, although the extra investment in the NHS is welcome, the lack of clarity from a Budget in which growth has actually been revised down means that in future years we could see additional investment in the NHS actually being cut back, because the Budget does not deliver the growth for public service investment?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot tax your way to growth and you cannot invest in public services without that growth. If the predictions we are seeing about growth are borne out, there is a real risk to our public services’ sustainability in future.

The Chancellor said that the funding would help to deliver 40,000 more NHS appointments a week, but again we see no reference to specific actions by which that will be achieved. The Government seem not to know the difference between a target and a plan, and simply restating their ambition while throwing money at the challenge will not be enough to deliver on that commitment.

As I have said, elements of the Budget relating to the Department of Health and Social Care were welcome, one of them being the Secretary of State’s one-nil win over the Chief Secretary in respect of funding. An additional £2 billion to drive productivity is important. I fear that it is a slimmed-down version of the £3.4 billion NHS productivity plans that we announced and funded, but I will study it closely, and, similarly, the Secretary of State’s plan for mental health is deserving of serious study. On both sides of this Chamber, we recognise the importance in mental health investment of not only parity of esteem but parity of services, and it is therefore right for us to scrutinise very carefully how the right hon. Gentleman intends to build further on the success that we had in driving that agenda forward.

Let me now turn to the subject of capital investment, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It concerns me that, as far as I am aware, the Secretary of State has still not told us exactly when his review of the new hospital programme will report and set out the future for each and every one of the hospitals that he committed himself to delivering during the election campaign—the programme to which the previous Chancellor had committed funding, building on the original £3.7 billion allocated in 2019. The question for the Government, and the question for the Chief Secretary to answer when he winds up the debate, is: “When will that review report, and when will each and every one of those colleagues and communities who are looking forward to a new hospital know whether it will be delivered in line with the Secretary of State’s pledge, or whether the programme will be cut?”

Nearly a week after the Budget, Members will be familiar with the verdict of the Office for Budget Responsibility: namely, that the £25 billion assault on businesses risks lower wages, lower living standards and lower growth. And let us not forget what this tax hike will mean for those providing essential services across primary, secondary and social care—the general practices, care homes, adult social care providers, community pharmacists on our high streets, hospices and charities such as Marie Curie and Macmillan which provide additional care for patients alongside the NHS.

I was deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) to state clearly that all those groups would be exempt and would not be hit by this hike, and I hope that when the Chief Secretary winds up the debate he will be able to give that reassurance. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the extra costs of the employer’s national insurance hike could force GP surgeries to make redundancies or close altogether, and the Independent Pharmacies Association has warned that community pharmacies will have to find an extra £12,000 a year, on average, to pay for the hike.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I was waiting for the Health Secretary to turn to devolution issues, but he never quite did. We have a particular issue in Scotland: up to £500 million of extra costs will be forced on to the NHS there because of that national insurance hike. We have heard no commitment from the Secretary of State that he will meet those costs in full, and we look forward to hearing such a commitment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will share my concern about what this is doing to devolved services across the United Kingdom.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the ill-thought-out consequences of this hike for hospices and general practices, both in Scotland and elsewhere. I would dearly love to be able to respond to his question. Sadly, however, I am on this the side of the House and not the other side, but I am sure that the Chief Secretary will attempt to do so.

The Nuffield Trust has said that without additional financial support, the tax raid is likely to force social care providers to pass higher costs on to people who pay for their own care, or potentially collapse financially. Charities are not exempt either. As a result of the increases in the national living wage and employer’s national insurance contributions, one of the UK’s largest social care charities says it is facing an unfunded increased wage bill of £12 million a year, and Marie Curie has warned that the rises in employer’s NI contributions will only serve to put the services that it delivers on behalf of the NHS under further pressure. Those charities will be looking to the Chief Secretary to say what succour he can offer them in the form of an assurance that they will not be hit.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, but before throwing stones, will he just remind the House that under his Government’s plans, there would have been £15 billion less for the NHS, leaving it broken?

[Edward Argar]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place as well. I think this is the first opportunity I have had to respond to a intervention or question from her.

In fact, we put record funding into the NHS—£164.9 billion per year—and on top of that we recruited more doctors and more nurses. We did not do that by piling tax hikes on hospices and general practices, among others. I am not sure how hitting primary care, social care or charities supporting NHS services will help the Secretary of State to deliver his aim of cutting waiting lists. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the House what steps the Treasury is taking to ensure that those organisations are not hit by these changes.

Let me take a moment to consider what was not included in the Budget.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will make a bit of progress, if I may.

There were no plans for social care reform after the Chancellor broke Labour’s promise to deliver the cap on social care costs. I hear what the Secretary of State says about a willingness to work on what is a challenge facing our whole country and society: with an ageing population, how do we address the challenge of social care? There were no further detailed plans for NHS dentistry, despite the election pledge to deliver more dental appointments. There was no support for pharmacies or for the day-to-day running of general practice, and there were still no additional resources for the NHS this winter—or, indeed, the details of reform to go with them.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the investment that the last Conservative Government put into the NHS. Can he tell me what the outcome of that investment was? From my point of view, the outcome was longer waiting lists, poorer health and bad patient care.

[Edward Argar]

We increased investment significantly, not only to tackle the inevitable consequence of a global covid pandemic—which, as we all know, hit our NHS hard—but to build back better subsequently, which is the task that we began to perform. We have always said that investment in the NHS must be married to reform in order to deliver better patient outcomes and value for money, building on the reforms that we introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022 and ensuring that the NHS will be there to look after us for decades to come. The Secretary of State has worked with me before, and we will work with any party, including his.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Argar]

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because I am keen for others to have a chance to speak.

That offer to the Secretary of State stands. I am always happy to work constructively with him when he is willing to work constructively with me. He knows that we have done that before, not least as we emerged from the pandemic, when I was still a Minister in the Department.

Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, I fear that the Budget was a missed opportunity that will not achieve the ambitions the Government have set out. As I have said, we cannot tax our way to growth, and without growth we cannot sustainably fund public services. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be brave, to stand up to those in his party who would have him back down or water down reform, and to deliver a genuinely radical plan for the future of our NHS and for social care that works for those who work in it, but also, crucially, for all the people who rely on it. Our constituents deserve nothing less from him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Kate Osamor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

The hon. Lady continues to be a loud voice for those who are immunosuppressed, and I commend her for that. As she is aware, Evusheld was awarded conditional marketing authorisation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which outlined some remaining questions, including about the amount of protection and the dose needed. My Department has been conducting an assessment of Evusheld, looking at the data available and the options for the NHS. We have asked clinicians to look at what we can do for future patient cohorts; we are considering their advice and will update the House shortly.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

One of the great privileges of the three years that I spent at the Department of Health and Social Care was seeing at first hand the amazing work of our NHS workforce; I put on record once again my gratitude to them. Growing that workforce is vital to meeting the future health needs of our population, so will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his post, reconfirm the Government’s commitment to the target of 50,000 more nurses, and update the House on progress towards that target?

[Steve Barclay]

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his service as Minister of State? I think he was one of the longest-serving Ministers in that role; in fact, I think he took over from me, or shortly after me. He carried out the role with great distinction, as I am sure the whole House recognises.

I am very happy to reconfirm our commitment. I think the number is at about a third of a million, and great progress is being made. That enlarged measure is down to my hon. Friend’s work as Minister of State.