Infected Blood Inquiry

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

In the past three years alone, I have spoken in this House at least 10 times about the delays that the victims of contaminated blood have faced in obtaining the justice and compensation they deserve. Progress has been painfully slow and, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, there is much anger, frustration and mistrust for us to deal with, as it has not gone away. It has not been diluted by the general election, and those seeking compensation are rightly angry and mistrustful.

In May 2024, the inquiry found that more than 3,000 people had sadly died as a result of this scandal. Roughly one victim dies every two days, many without receiving compensation. I would not like to calculate how many people have died since I first spoke about contaminated blood in the House. My right hon. Friend mentioned further legislation and, between now and then, more people will sadly pass on as a result of this scandal.

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has had only a few months to try to rectify the consequences of the previous Government’s slow response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s demands. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything in his power to ensure that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority hires the staff needed to address the challenges and to design the procedures required with the utmost urgency. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has got the message.

I have spoken in the House many times of my constituent Sean Cavens, who was one of the youngest people in the country to be infected with hepatitis C as a result of being given contaminated blood. He has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of fellow victims of the scandal. Many people have died waiting for justice.

At the current rate of settling claims, which is another huge issue, victims and others are concerned that many more people will die without seeing a ha’penny of compensation for themselves or their families. They question whether the Government are acting quickly enough, with only 270 claims expected to be dealt with by the end of the financial year and more than 4,500 claims in limbo. I share their concerns; I am not sure if that is good enough.

Sean is now 43 years of age. He was infected with hepatitis C and other viruses in 1983. He wonders where he fits in the selection process. He will not be alone in wondering whether he must simply hang on and hope to survive long enough to see justice done for him and his family.

While the scheme currently has no effect on payments made through the infected blood support schemes, that will cease to be the case in the new financial year. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will review that approach and extend the deadline, so that people who receive payments after 31 March 2025 do not see that deducted from compensation through the new scheme. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider that point?

Fundamentally, Sean and others are concerned that those currently on the infected blood support schemes are not automatically being offered the core route payment. They wonder why they cannot be offered a lump sum payment equivalent to payments up to the average life expectancy of 86. They are also concerned that the rates of compensation to be offered are rumoured—I emphasise the word “rumoured”—to be only 20% of current annual payments. I am sure that will be outlined by my right hon. Friend in his winding-up speech.

The uncertainty about the compensation scheme’s date of infection criteria is causing concern for victims. The burden of proof for those who were infected after screening for relevant viruses began is deemed by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to be “higher”, but without any clarification on what that actually means in practice. Will the Minister provide such clarification? Screening began for HIV in November 1985 and for hepatitis C in September 1991, but for hepatitis B it was as early as December 1972. As I mentioned, Sean was infected with hepatitis B in 1983. He needs to know how that will affect his final compensation. For instance, will the IBCA take into account that the screening test for hepatitis B in 1983 is estimated to have been only 43% effective? Will the IBCA recognise that victims were treated for hepatitis C with the retroviral drug Interferon, which has well known serious side effects on patients’ mental health? Will that be reflected in their compensation?

Will the Minister confirm that Sir Brian Langstaff’s recent guidance, contained in his letter dated 13 November 2024, regarding the siblings of victims who deserve compensation, will be accepted by the IBCA and reflected in any compensation scheme that it designs? Will, as Sir Brian has recommended, any family member whose relationship was “so close” to the victim that damage to their own mental or physical health caused by witnessing their sibling’s suffering was “reasonably” foreseeable receive full compensation, if they were so damaged? It has been reported that the IBCA will only compensate siblings of victims if they lived with the victim in the family unit for a full two years. Will the Minister ensure that that arbitrary restriction is not contained in any IBCA compensation scheme?

Will the Minister confirm that the family of any victim who dies before his or her application to the IBCA has been completed will receive full compensation? There are indications that the IBCA interpreted the inquiry’s final report as saying the contrary—that it intends to pay only those who live long enough to receive a final reward. That cannot, in any way, shape or form, be correct. It is not fair and it is not just.

Will the Minister ensure that those who, as children, were purposefully infected with contaminated blood in the name of medical research are awarded enhanced punitive levels of compensation, to reflect the country’s abhorrence at such horrific criminal behaviour, carried out by medical professionals who had sworn to dedicate themselves to healing the sick? That is one thing I just cannot understand. The whole tragic scandal is an absolute disgrace, but it is really abhorrent that this great country of ours experimented on little children. Those children, many of whom have not survived, deserve the compensation. How much they should be awarded is obviously to be determined, as has been stated, but bearing in mind the abhorrent nature of what we have done as a nation, I ask the Minister to ensure it is enough.

The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Type 2 Diabetes: Availability of Drugs

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, because that point is at the heart of the matter. We have to ensure that the supply of drugs, which is short at the moment, is prioritised for those who need them for important health reasons.

A healthy weight, as the hon. Member said, and keeping active make it easier for someone’s body to manage their blood sugar levels and help prevent insulin resistance, which can lead to type 2 diabetes. Research has shown that, for some people, a combination of lifestyle changes can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 50%, but sufferers may also need to take diabetes medication such as metformin and insulin, as well as making changes to their lifestyle.

In the UK, 4.6 million people have type 2 diabetes and around 13.6 million are at risk of developing it. People often need help, such as intervention and medicines. Last year, I called on the UK Government to take action on the shortage of medicines for type 2 diabetes patients, after a constituent came to me concerned that her treatment and her health would be impacted by a shortage of the diabetes drugs she needed. They are known as GLP-1 RAs—glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists—and include one of the most common drugs, semaglutide.

As for many other manufactured drugs, there is currently a supply problem with semaglutide. In this case, the problem has been made worse, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, by the fact that the same drugs are effective for weight loss. The very thing that semaglutide does to help diabetes patients is making it difficult for them to access it.

I wrote to the Scottish Government, who told me they did not expect the supply to return to normal until mid-way through this year. I appreciate that that is not the most helpful response, but in some ways it is understandable, because medicine supply and licensing is a reserved matter. That is why I am raising it with the UK Government. We have seen issues with drug shortages beyond diabetes, and that is why I am so concerned at the slow response to the lack of medication.

Patients find themselves stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. In Scotland, they have the Scottish Government unable to act, and they perceive the UK Government to be very slow to act. It seems that neither Government have realised how potentially serious this situation could be for patients who use these drugs daily. For a patient to be in a position where they do not know whether they can get what they need to help them get well and keep them healthy is simply not acceptable. I have heard from people in my constituency and beyond about the impact that the situation is having on their lives.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that this is not just about access to drugs for type 2 diabetics, but about access to medical equipment, such as the LibreView glucose monitoring sensors that have changed people’s lives? Does she agree that, because the incidence of type 2 diabetes is closely related to areas of social deprivation, where the finance is not available, the NHS should look to give those sensors to as many people living with type 2 diabetes as possible? That would save a fortune in the future, and it would reduce harm to lots of people who are currently suffering greatly because of diabetes.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I completely agree.

Type 2 diabetes is a problem in itself, with the lack of medication, but it is also an illustration of a major problem that our health services are facing with growing costs. We should be looking at how we prevent the problem in the first place, both in areas of social deprivation and in society generally. We should be looking at how we help people to avoid the problems that come with conditions such as type 2 diabetes. If we fail in that, people will fall into the situation where they are living with diabetes—a condition that requires 24/7 self-management to stay healthy. I invite Members to imagine living with a condition that they have to manage every day—a condition that has the power to affect them at any moment, disrupting what they are doing and altering their day to day life—when they have done all they can to stop that happening. Now consider how the lack of a medication that we have organisations and administrations responsible for providing makes that situation worse.

A couple of years ago, as part of a campaign by Diabetes UK, I tried to live life as if I had diabetes, and I have to say that I failed dismally. I realised just how difficult it is, and I realised that people living with diabetes —type 1 or type 2—deserve much better than they are getting at the moment. To be turned away at the GP surgery or pharmacy through no fault of the practitioner and to be told, “You might have to wait 18 months for what has been helping you get on top of the condition”, is simply unacceptable.

I know some people who have been left waiting since 2023. Shortages have been linked to those without diabetes using the drugs, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, simply for weight-loss purposes. Drugs such as Ozempic are being sold online for nearly £200—a 1,765% increase on the cost of what they would be on an NHS prescription.

The Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies has talked of the shortage of medication to treat the likes of epilepsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well as diabetes, all of them potentially life-changing and life-ending conditions. That is true also of some cancer drugs and hormone replacement therapy. The consequences do not lie just at the door of patients but, as we have heard, at that of the NHS and community pharmacy teams, which are under increased strain.

A national patient safety alert has been issued by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to address supply, but I ask those with the power to consider standing in the shoes of those going through this. People who should have been started on GLP-1s are facing delay or are being put on to less effective options. Let us imagine being told that we had to take less effective medicine for a life-changing condition. If the supply is interrupted, a person potentially has to go through the side effects again and again when being restarted. People have been contacting Diabetes UK regularly since the start of the shortage in early 2023. This is not just about equality or ease of access. For all those affected, it is about quality of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

It is an injectable medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. It was recently approved by the MHRA. To put a little bit of extra information out there, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended Mounjaro, the same drug, for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who meet specific criteria. The NHS in England is therefore now legally required, in line with NICE recommendations, to fund its use for eligible patients. The availability of that new medicine in Scotland is, however, a matter for the devolved Administration. The Scottish Medicines Consortium, which makes decisions on the use of medicines in Scotland, has not yet published guidance on Mounjaro. It will be a matter for the SMC as to whether that becomes an option in Scotland.

As I was saying, Mr Pritchard, unfortunately we expect supply chain issues to continue for the rest of the year. Throughout the management of this issue, our guidance has been supported by additional advice issued in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which has, critically, reinforced the messaging provided by the national patient safety alerts.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister understand and recognise the benefits of glucose monitoring centres? It is not a supply chain issue, but an access issue. They can and do change people’s lives, but they are not widely accessible. People are very much unaware that they actually exist. If they did and understood that the centres were available from the NHS, it would save the NHS millions if not billions of pounds. It would change the lives of many people, mainly in deprived areas. Can the Minister give a commitment to look at that and see how we can allow more people to access glucose monitoring systems?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am more than happy to look at the issue. However, I believe—I may be mistaken—that he is suggesting something that we would routinely advise for type 1 diabetics to be provided to type 2 diabetics. As far as I am aware, the clinical advice does not suggest that we do that, but I am more than happy to look at the issue, because I want to ensure that we support people living with diabetes as much as we can.

Finally, I emphasise that our guidance remains clear that medicines licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes should be used only for that purpose. All prescribers, whether employed privately or by the NHS, are expected to take into account the appropriate national guidance. Unfortunately, the supply disruption is a common issue for the UK and other countries around the world, which is both frustrating and distressing for patients. We cannot always prevent supply issues from occurring, but where they do arise, the Department has a range of well-established processes and tools to manage them and to help mitigate the risk to patients. Addressing issues with GLP-1 RAs continues to be a priority for the Department. We will continue to work hard with industry to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for raising such an important issue.

Question put and agree to.

NHS Dentistry

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Prevention is better than cure. It is a truism, and it is also the foundation pillar of what would be Labour’s 10-year plan for reform and modernisation of our national health service. A part of that plan is before the House today, and Government Members will have to explain to their constituents, only months, if not weeks away from a general election, why they are refusing to support it.

The Government’s amendment to the motion promises that the dental recovery plan is coming soon, but it was due last summer; now, they cannot put a date on when the plan will arrive, when it will be implemented or even say what it is. Conservative Ministers have taken a look at the state of NHS dentistry, at the millions of people across the country who cannot get an appointment to see a dentist and at children in their own constituencies whose teeth are rotting, and their conclusion is: what is the rush? Let me tell them why they should get their skates on.

A 17-year-old boy in Plymouth had to undergo emergency surgery on an abscess in his mouth last year. He spent two months trying to book an NHS dentist—he said that he was on hold for about three hours per day. According to figures on the NHS website, no dentists are taking on new NHS patients in the Plymouth, Moor View constituency. It was left too late, and when he finally got the healthcare he needed, he required emergency surgery, which has left him scarred for life.

In Worthing West, Labour’s candidate Dr Beccy Cooper told me of an 82-year-old great-grandfather on pension credit who told her that he will not be going back to an NHS dentist before he dies. He tried to get an NHS dentist in Worthing, but no one will take him on the NHS to receive low-cost treatment. Dr Beccy Cooper also tells me that residents who cannot get a dentist are being told to look for one in Hampshire, more than 60 miles away from where they live.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On that important point, a couple who moved into new housing in my constituency tried to get an NHS dentist for over a year without any success whatsoever. They have got two options: they either go private or use their previous dentist, who is 20 miles away. That is wholly unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend simply explain how Labour’s plan will eradicate this unacceptable issue?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will have: 700,000 appointments, making a difference straightaway; supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds to reduce future demand on NHS services; and reform of the NHS dentistry contract so that we can rebuild an NHS dentistry service worthy of the name. That change cannot come soon enough.

Building an NHS Fit for the Future

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The issues that we have all been discussing today, and will discuss further, are extremely important, but looking at what is happening globally, they appear extremely trivial. The unbearable terror, suffering and death of innocent civilians in the middle east, in Gaza and Israel, must stop, which is why I have added my name to the call for an immediate ceasefire.

This country is in crisis. Our public services are collapsing, a climate change crisis is upon us, and working-class people are suffering a horrendous cost of living crisis that is draining them of the resources that they and their families need just to lead basic, decent lives. In my constituency of Wansbeck, ordinary families are bearing the brunt of this Government’s utter failure. Child poverty is surging, mutual aid groups and food banks are stretched to the limit, and businesses are suffering because of the lack of available finances. A Government with even an iota of human decency would have presented to the House a legislative plan for the next year that could address those grave crises, but instead they have delivered an agenda that will do absolutely nothing to alleviate the strain that these problems are causing our people. In fact, they are happy to draft statutes to make the crises even worse.

The people I proudly represent in south-east Northumberland know what it is like to be forgotten, to be neglected, and to be offered nothing by this Government. They also know that it is Tory Governments who have caused many of the problems that they face—not just those caused by the past 13 years of disastrous Tory rule, but the legacies of previous Tory Governments as well. It is the Tories who, over the years, have not only destroyed the industrial base that we have needed to produce well-paid jobs, but passed and continue to pass anti-trade union legislation that will deprive working-class people in my area and all over the UK of the means to obtain the decent wages that they deserve.

We are living with the legacy of the anti-trade union laws that began with the Thatcher regime. That legacy is a low-wage economy in which even workers in what should be very well-paid jobs struggle to make ends meet. Those laws have made it harder for unions to organise themselves in workplaces, and have created rules for industrial action that are some of the most restrictive in the world. The legal obstacles to organising a successful strike ballot are immense, and have given the employers an unfair advantage in disputes in which trade union members have rightly asked for a fair wage. It is not surprising that many workers now face falling living standards, and the stressful day-to-day torment of trying to make ends meet.

Where in the King’s Speech was the much-promised employment Bill to protect people in employment? Where was the abolition of zero-hours contracts, and the abolition of fire and rehire in the workplace? The last 13 years have seen wages across many sectors decline in real terms, forcing many of our fellow citizens to take strike action. They have been determined enough to fight these injustices that they have overcome the treacherous anti-strike laws designed to thwart them. The Government have antagonised workers up and down the country, including many who were classified as key workers, who drove the country through the worst pandemic and some of the darkest times in history. Strikes and industrial action continue at the likes of the bus company Go North East, and balloting is taking place even at Oxfam—an organisation that prides itself on looking after the deprived and the poor—which has amassed a fortune, but still not enough to pay the workforce properly. There are pockets of strike action in the civil service and elsewhere in the public sector. I ask again, where is the employment rights Bill that the Government have promised for so long? In the private sector, individuals have seen their wages decline at the same time as company directors and CEOs have seen their remuneration packages grow grotesquely. In the public sector, many of those we value so highly and who showed their dedication to serving us so courageously during the covid pandemic have been forced to take action not only to seek to restore their own wages but to try and redress the crippling staff shortages caused by Tory neglect.

In the NHS, staff shortages have been created by a long-term Tory public sector wage squeeze, which has also made staff retention and recruitment extremely difficult. That has been a major factor in the decline of our public services, especially in the NHS. The NHS is held together by the glue that is the dedication, passion and commitment of the staff, and we should all pay tribute to every single one of them. Where in this King’s Speech was there anything to do with the deterioration of our people’s health, caused as a direct result of the wilful Tory neglect of the NHS? For instance, why was there nothing to improve the cancer waiting lists that are endangering so many lives? In my area, the privately operated Rutherford Centre was being used by the NHS for cancer scanning and treatments. In June 2022, the company that owned it went into liquidation and it remains closed to this day. It remains empty and its treatment rooms are silent through Tory indifference. It is locked up and idle, but it could be helping individuals with cancer.

The King’s Speech could have been used to announce full compensation payments to parents and children who have suffered the loss of loved ones as a consequence of the blood contamination scandal. These people have been promised time and time again that full compensation would be paid. It was undoubtedly the worst tragedy in the history of the NHS, and I fear that many more victims of this tragedy will die before the Government agree to pay full compensation as well as interim repayments to some of the individuals. My constituent Sean Cavens was among those victims. They have all suffered and they have been tret terribly. The King’s Speech could have recognised their suffering and that of so many others, but it did not, because the Tories simply do not care.

This issue cannot continue to be kicked into the long grass. Victims are dying on a daily basis, and the recent reshuffle, only hours ago, means that the Minister in charge of the contaminated blood tragedy has now left their post, leaving the victims at a loss over who will take charge of this absolutely desperate situation. I would love the Minister who is summing up to tell the victims of contaminated blood who will be in charge and, as victims of the NHS failing to comply with the regulations all those years ago, tell them when they will receive fair and right compensation.

The Government have announced in the King’s Speech that they intend to use the powers they created under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to lay down minimum service levels during strikes in the health services, transport services and other sectors. That will force many into work against their will and allow them to be sacked if they refuse. It will be done without negotiating with the unions, in the dictatorial manner that we have come to expect from anti-trade-union fanatics. It will be chaotic, undemocratic in the extreme and probably illegal under international labour law. The Government consistently manifest their disdain for democracy, whether by attacking people’s right to strike or through undermining our freedom to protest, yet they have the nerve to say that they are the true guardians of British values.

Let us not forget that this Tory Government recently revealed that their only constant principle was to encourage greed and help those who have the most already. In a country in which we have the disgrace of families having to rely on food banks to live, the Tories think it is more important to remove the restrictions on bankers’ bonuses than to meaningfully address the needs of the poor and the low-paid. That is in sharp contrast to the values shown by the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, who has pledged that within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, the recent anti-strike measures will be repealed and measures will be created to allow trade unions to organise more freely.

There is lots more, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I see many others waiting to speak. I wanted to hear something in the King’s Speech about the gigafactory in my constituency, which was again neglected; it never received a penny from the Government, from the automotive transformation fund, to progress lots of jobs in my area. That did not happen. Why was it not in the King’s Speech? I represent a mining area. Why was there nothing in the King’s Speech on the surplus that the Government are robbing from the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and why was there nothing on the changing regulations on pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma, when people are dying on a regular basis? The Government are dying, and they have nothing to offer but further chaos and despair. The King’s Speech was evidence of this terrible state of affairs, and we need to strip aside the worst Government in living memory.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I emphasise that we need to think of others and try to stick to the advisory guidance.

Future of the NHS

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood]

First, in challenging the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, I refer him to the point earlier in my speech when I spoke about the Government’s current spending commitment. I also ask him to listen to the rest of my speech, as I will come on to the economy.

It is not the fundamental model of the NHS that is broken; it is the fact that it has been underfunded that has led to us to where we are now. As is clear for all to see, we are at a point of crisis. Waiting lists for routine treatments recently hit a record high of 7.75 million, with more than 9,000 people waiting for more than 18 months. It is truly devastating that last year, more than 120,000 people in England died while on NHS waiting lists for hospital treatment. That is double the number who died in 2017-18. There are over 125,000 staffing vacancies, including more than 43,000 vacancies in nursing and more than 10,000 medical staff vacancies. Many of the staff who are in post are burned out, with not enough colleagues to work alongside them.

The “Fit for the Future” report published by the Royal College of General Practitioners last autumn revealed that the situation in primary care is dire. It found that 42% of GPs in England are either likely or very likely to leave the profession over the next five years. As of August 2023, there were 27,246 fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs in England, 3.1% less than in 2019 and 7.4% less than in 2015. That downward trend simply cannot go on.

Last week, the Care Quality Commission rated almost two thirds of maternity services in England either “inadequate” or “requires improvement” for the safety of care and said:

“The overarching picture is one of a service and staff under huge pressure.”

Cancer Research UK has pointed out that cancer waiting time targets continue to be missed in England, and recent months have seen some of the worst performances on record.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

With regard to cancer waiting lists, the Rutherford Cancer Centre, a specialist proton beam centre in my constituency, has been lying idle for almost two years, since Rutherford centres across the country went into liquidation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NHS should take control of the Rutherford centres, and that that in itself would help to reduce waiting lists for cancer treatment?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am not familiar with the centre that my hon. Friend speaks of, but I do believe that the NHS should control the assets and make sure that the service is there for people when they need it. I would like to hear more about the centre from him at another time.

By deliberately underfunding the NHS, the Conservatives have undermined it as a comprehensive, universal public service. Their desire to privatise the NHS has been evident for a very long time. It is a shocking agenda to essentially destroy our most cherished institution.

This determination to dismantle the NHS, which has been proven to be a world leader in terms of effectiveness, equity and efficiency, is not only immensely damaging to patients and the staff who work in the service, but damaging to the economy. Last year, an estimated 185.6 million working days were lost because of sickness or injury—a record high. Similarly, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported in July that the 15 to 64-year-old economic inactivity rate

“has increased in the UK by 0.5 percentage points”

since the covid pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I will come back to the hon. Lady, but I am conscious of time.

The second area widely covered today was workforce. I echo the hon. Lady’s thanks to our NHS staff. I want to put on record my personal thanks to all those working in our health and care system: doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, managers, carers—all those who work in our NHS—for their hard work and dedication. We remain deeply grateful to them for all their work during the pandemic, in facing the new challenges of tackling the backlog, and of course the routinely excellent care they provide day in, day out. Our long-term workforce plan embodies the Government’s commitment to NHS sustainability: we are funding more doctors, more nurses and healthcare workers employed on NHS terms and conditions by NHS providers. That is backed by an additional £2.4 billion over the next five years, and at the heart of it is a significant increase in training places.

The third theme I want to focus on is transformation and innovation, which has also been touched on. We are committed to making our NHS more integrated, more strategic and better able to tackle the challenges it faces. The hon. Lady referenced the Health and Care Act 2022 numerous times—I hear her questions and points, and I will write to her on them. We put those issues on a statutory footing. We know that an increasing number of people are living with chronic medical conditions and complex care needs, which is where more integrated services can and will make an enormous difference. We want partners focusing on improving services rather than competing with each other when it is not in the interest of patients. I believe—we believe—that is the right approach because local areas know best, and certainly know far better than Ministers in Whitehall how best to organise themselves and design and deliver the best possible care for patients.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

I have to make some progress—I am conscious of time.

In addition, we have digital transformation and technology, which are critical to the future of the health and social care system. Embracing digital provides a significant opportunity for us to improve clinical service to deliver better care for patients and reduce pressures on the NHS. That is why we are investing around £1.5 billion a year in digital transformation to run live services and drive those transformation ambitions. That also includes plans to improve our NHS app, digitise the frontline and improve services. We are also working with trusts to deliver things such as electronic discharge and electronic bed management systems, which also improve efficiency within the NHS.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) mentioned NIHR research, which I want to touch on briefly. We spend around £1 billion a year on that, but the Government do not commission research directly; indeed, it would be totally wrong for any Minister or shadow Minister to direct our clinicians and researchers to look into a particular area. However, we encourage and rely on organisations to come forward with bids for research, which clinicians then look at. That is rightly independent from Government, and I will be happy to work with the hon. Member to see how we can get more research into that area.

I wanted to say so much more, but time is short and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Wirral West has time to respond. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) touched on the life sciences space. We are putting a huge amount of work into life sciences with the Life Sciences Council and the life sciences vision, and we have launched the dementia, mental health, cancer, obesity and addiction missions, with more than £210 million in Government investment and world-leading chairs to support them. There is also our additional investment in genomic medicine, which the hon. Member rightly touched on and which is a hugely exciting field. The ability to screen for and identify the prevalence of future disease and the ability to screen babies in future will be hugely exciting. This is definitely the future of medicine.

This is a hugely important debate and I have far more to say, as you can tell, Mr Pritchard. The NHS is a vital part of the fabric of our public life. It is beloved by the public and rightly held in the highest esteem. The Government believes in the NHS; I believe in the NHS. That is why we are taking the right long-term decisions to protect its future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady is not quite right in her statistics. Just before covid we had seen a 20% reduction compared with two decades ago in suicide levels in England. She might be interested to know that in Labour-run Wales suicide rates are higher than in England, and its suicide prevention strategy expired last year. Mental health has been demoted on the shadow Front Bench, too, as we saw from the resignation of the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) when the role of shadow mental health Minister was removed from the Opposition Front Bench.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to remediate hospital buildings with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)]

We are determined to address the safety issues caused by RAAC. We are prioritising the seven worst-affected hospitals and have a fund of just under £700 million covering the four-year programme of replacement.

[Ian Lavery]

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the hospitals where RAAC is an issue also have issues with asbestos being present? What assessment has his Department made of the impact should asbestos spores be released in a RAAC collapse?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member raises an interesting point about asbestos, because much of the NHS estate dates from a time when asbestos was widely used. Of course, asbestos is considered safe if it is undisturbed. It is a similar issue with RAAC.

On RAAC, we are following the guidance from the Institution of Structural Engineers and monitoring it. The advice is not that all RAAC needs to be replaced; the point is that it needs to be monitored. Where there is deterioration, we have a fund of just under £700 million to tackle that. The asbestos is being monitored, as is the RAAC. We have been monitoring this since 2019 and have a four-year national programme backed up with £700 million to address issues as and when they arise.

Covid-19: PPE Procurement

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

I will look closely at all the suggestions that the hon. Member makes. I have not had a chance to look at the Bill, but I am sure that we are always in the market for constructive ideas.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

At the same time as the Government were being obstructive and deliberately attempting to block Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust in the north-east from providing PPE from a factory of its own, people who were closely connected to the Government were making millions from PPE. Minister, is that just a strange coincidence?

[Neil O’Brien]

The people who came through the high-priority route were not politically connected people, except in the sense that they were being referred by MPs across the House. I do not know the exact details of the north-east supplier that the hon. Gentleman mentions. If he gets in touch, I will be happy to take that up and provide him with a full explanation of what the issue was with that bid for a contract.

North East Ambulance Service

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making those points. Several safety measures were started when he was Secretary of State for Health, including the duty of candour. There is supposed to be a culture in place where, if mistakes happen, the health service is open and honest about that. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch was introduced. There is independent investigation. Anyone can report concerns to that body and an investigation will take place. There is the early notification system in maternity, where if mistakes or incidents happen the process is first and foremost to say that to relatives and family and to start a lessons-learned process. The patient safety commissioner is to be appointed shortly. We are doing everything we can not just to improve patient safety, but to improve openness and learning within the system to change the culture within the NHS.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The North East Ambulance Service has been dysfunctional for years—before covid, during covid, since covid. Elderly women and men are still lying on the pavement with broken bones waiting to receive attention. Pregnant women and people suffering from acute problems such as heart attacks and strokes are still being asked to call a cab to get to hospital. It is not good enough. When this investigation starts, will MPs in the region be allowed to participate? We all have numerous tragic cases that we would like to discuss.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle the effect of poor housing conditions on health outcomes.

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

The Government are committed to tackling poor-quality housing. In the social housing White Paper, we committed to a review of the decent homes standard to test whether it is up to date and reflects current needs and expectations. The levelling-up White Paper sets out a commitment to halve levels of non-decency in all rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the poorest-performing areas. These reforms will have a positive impact on health, and we will work closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to support their implementation.

[Ian Lavery]

The NHS spends a staggering £2.5 billion-plus annually on treating people with illnesses directly linked to living in cold, damp and dangerous conditions. As a consequence, severe respiratory diseases such as asthma, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are on the increase, mainly in the most deprived areas. Sadly, more and more people are dying. How does the Government’s levelling-up policy plan to tackle this increasingly urgent health issue?

[Maggie Throup]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue that we are determined to tackle. Housing is one of the key determinants of health. A decent home can promote good health and protect from illness and harm. As he said, poor housing conditions have severe consequences for mental and physical health. That is why we are determined, not just through the levelling-up White Paper but through the health disparities White Paper that will be published later this year, to set out a bold ambition to reduce the gap in health outcomes and the actions that the Government will be taking to address the wider determinants of health, including the impact of poor housing on health.

Future of the NHS

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

There are actually a couple of aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) that I agree with and congratulate him on. First, I do not support PFI either. History suggests that although that hospital was completed and perhaps started under a Labour Government, PFI was originally a Conservative initiative under the Major Government, so I would not be too confident about attacking it but I am pleased that it is gone.

I also profoundly agree with the hon. Member’s support for NHS staff; I think we will be hearing a lot of that this evening. The NHS is recognised and envied around the world. It is something that we should celebrate and admire, not chop up, neglect and sell off piecemeal at every opportunity. It is the NHS and its staff that are getting us through this pandemic. I would like to take this opportunity, as I am sure all hon. Members would, to once again thank the NHS and care staff who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much over the last two years.

The NHS cannot continue to look after us if we do not look after it. Tory mismanagement over the last decade and the pressures of the pandemic mean that the NHS is running on empty and surviving solely on the good will of its employees. Even before the pandemic, we were seeing record waiting lists and staffing shortages. Now the numbers are through the roof.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On that point, my hon. Friend mentions that the NHS is running on empty—of course it is. A Unite survey published in January 2022 showed that 77% of the NHS workforce believe that they are worse off than they were a year before, 55% are working during their lunch breaks, and more than 50% are working in excess of their contracted hours. Is it any wonder that the NHS is running on empty?

[Christian Matheson]

I could not have put it better myself. The NHS is running on empty, but also on the good will of the staff because they believe in the NHS and in what they are doing. There were 6 million people on the waiting list in England in November—the highest number ever recorded. In my constituency of City of Chester, the latest figures show that 36,000 people are waiting for care at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

Those record waiting lists are also true for NHS dentistry, as my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), has pointed out. Some people are being told that they may have to wait up to two years for a NHS dental appointment. Over the past few months, many of my constituents have told me the difficulties that they have had in finding and accessing an NHS dentist in my constituency and the surrounding areas. On average, there are only 4.4 dentists per 10,000 people in England, and the number is shrinking. With shortages of staff, a lack of funding, the pressures of the pandemic and dissatisfaction with NHS dentists’ contracts, the waiting lists are growing. Many dental practices are feeling pressure to turn private just to be able to cover wages and equipment costs, and to survive as a business.

Dr Simon Gallier, who owns a dental practice in my constituency, wrote to me with a heavy heart to say that earlier this month, he had to make the difficult decision to make his dental practice private; he had to inform over 7,500 patients that they will no longer be receiving NHS treatment. Practices around the country are doing this not through choice, but out of necessity and lack of funding. Dr Gallier just cannot make ends meet. Indeed, in the last year for which figures were available, 2018-19, the amount spent on dentistry fell in real terms, compared with the six years previously. While the £50 million announced recently by the Minster is welcome, only £7 million of that will go to dentistry in the north-west, which is clearly insufficient when the national budget for England was over £2 billion in 2019. With fewer NHS dental practices, many constituents have no choice but to go private—an option many will not be able to afford, especially given the cost-of-living crisis we face. I worry that the Tory masterplan all along has been to starve the NHS of funding, resulting in inevitable back-door privatisation—or perhaps there has been a more sinister scheme to monetise dentistry, as there has been in similar services, including some GP practices and many vets practices.

Dentists cannot afford to operate under the NHS, so they sell the practice to an umbrella company, which is the front for a finance company. That company then offers quasi-insurance or membership programmes, in which the patients pay an amount every month that entitles them to an annual check. That stream of money from numerous practices becomes a valuable commodity in the City of London, which the Conservative party exists to serve, along with Putin-linked Russian oligarchs, but we will not mention that now.

Talking of privatisation, what I fear is not the sale, lock, stock and barrel, in a public floatation, as happened in the 1980s, but sale bit by bit, behind the scenes, to private companies that extract money for their profit—money that should surely instead be spent on patient care. NHS dentistry is in crisis. I will not look that £50 million gift horse in the mouth, but let us be clear: much more is needed.