Health and Social Care

Debate between Jane Ellison and Lord Walney

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber for the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I was briefly attending a meeting of directors of public health, but I know he asked a specific question about the turnaround plan in his area. I believe it has been presented to the new governing body of Devon CCG, but I am happy to pick up the detail. As he says, we have debated the issue.

On the deficit in the NHS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responded in great detail in his opening address, but the thing about NHS finances that the Labour party never gets its head around is that, yes, they are under pressure, but one has to have a long-term plan for how to address that—plans for integration, out-of-hospital care and prevention. One has to be able to say—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asks where the money will come from. That is a question the electorate asked the Labour party all the way through the election—that was the No. 1 question the electorate of this country asked the Labour party, and answer came there none.

I am proud of the work we have done in the past five years, in which the NHS has built capacity and improved the care it delivers. It is worth reiterating the facts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave at the beginning of the debate. The NHS is now performing more than 1 million more operations; it has 9,400 more doctors and 7,700 more nurses; it sees, treats and discharges more than 3,000 more people within four hours every single day. By the end of the last Parliament, public satisfaction with the NHS was up 5% and it was deemed the best performing health system in the world by the Commonwealth Fund.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is being very accurate and precise about the figures for the NHS. Would she mind answering the shadow Minister’s question about the cancer targets for next year?

[Jane Ellison]

I have already responded to that issue. One would think that Her Majesty’s Opposition would have learned by now that to constantly denigrate the things the NHS does so well in pursuit of making political points does them no service at all.

There is a great track record for the NHS in the face of growing demand and tight financial pressures, but the NHS cannot go on treating more people at this rate. We need to move up several gears in prevention. If we prevent avoidable ill health, as well as enhancing the lives of so many of our citizens, we will get more out of the precious resources available for the NHS. In that vein, we are transforming access to GP and out-of-hospital care. It is all about relieving the pressures that we know exist in the health system and building on our work to bring about full parity between physical and mental health. Those measures will help us to ensure that people get the right care at the right time in the right place, and bring prevention to the fore.

The right hon. Member for Leigh asked specifically about the Bill on professional regulation. I can confirm that the Government remain committed to taking forward recommendations for reformed legislation on regulation of the health and care professions. Work is being done on that important piece of business.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the former Chair of the Health Committee, and others welcomed our announcement of a clampdown on agency pay. That goes to the heart of how we tackle financial pressures in the NHS. She also asked how agency rates will be set. It will be done on a local basis, agreed by providers and taking into account local circumstances and the regional labour market. Restrictions will not apply to internal “bank” staff—that was one of the specific questions she asked—which we see as a better and cheaper alternative to external agencies.

I said that it was important to get serious about prevention. As the Public Health Minister, I am delighted to see prevention right at the heart of the NHS’s own plan, the plan that we on the Conservative Benches are backing: the Five Year Forward View. We know that to ensure that our NHS is sustainable in the long term, we need to stop many people getting ill in the first place and ending up in hospital, so prevention is key. As the party of aspiration, we want everyone to achieve their potential and get on in life, for themselves and their family. Preventable ill-health and the burden of disease are a barrier to this and can hold people back. As we heard in many of the maiden speeches today, it is a burden that falls disproportionately on the most deprived communities. One of the frustrations that we on the Government Benches often feel is that it is not recognised by the Opposition that tackling health inequalities is something that we all feel passionately about. Improving the health of the most deprived communities in our country is a key part of tackling inequality in our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Lord Walney

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

It is exactly that kind of flexibility that we so much welcome in the “Five Year Forward View”, recognising the potential of smaller hospitals. My hon. Friend’s local hospital, which he champions so well, can apply to be one of NHS England’s prototypes, and I would encourage it to do so.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept the case made by commissioners and the trust in Morecambe Bay that, notwithstanding all the efficiencies and changes in services, the trust could not close its deficit, due to its near unique geography and health need, without significantly cutting vital services for the area?

[Jane Ellison]

These are clearly difficult local questions that local health leaders need to look at. If there is a particular issue the hon. Gentleman would like to draw to our attention, we will certainly be able to examine it. I recognise that unique geography is involved, but steps are already being taken by NHS England to try to close some of those gaps and to deal with those challenges that smaller hospitals face, working with Monitor and looking at, for example, the tariff regime. I encourage him to look at that, too.

Shaker Aamer

Debate between Jane Ellison and Lord Walney

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I know she is going to make her own contribution later. I have come around to the view that that is one of the only credible explanations, and I will talk about it later.

After 11 years, it is clear that the US does not have sufficient evidence against Shaker Aamer to bring charges, because if it did, it surely would have done so by now, as it has for many other detainees. We are left, therefore, with the fundamental questions: Why is Shaker Aamer still being held, and what are the conditions under which he may return to the UK? I put those questions directly to Brigadier General Mark Martins, chief prosecutor of the US office of military commissions in Guantanamo, when he came to the House of Commons last September, and to Leon Panetta, the outgoing US Secretary of Defence, when he visited the House in January. The official reason they both gave for Mr Aamer’s continued detention was that he was being held under

“the law of war…intended to prevent his return to the battlefield for the duration of hostilities in which he was previously engaged.”

That concerns me for many reasons. First, there is no credible evidence that Mr Aamer was ever engaged in “hostilities”. Secondly, the duration period described is incredibly vague. When he responds, will the Minister say whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an understanding of what that might mean? Does it mean for, for example, the duration of the US deployment to Afghanistan? Will it extend beyond the US troop draw-down from Afghanistan? That is important, because it might lead to an eventual release date.

In our country, even those convicted of very serious crimes know what sentence they must serve before they can be released, yet at this point Shaker Aamer has no such light at the end of the tunnel, even though other such difficult cases have been resolved. For example, the case of another British resident, Binyam Mohamed, who was often mentioned in the same breath as Mr Aamer, was also considered difficult and the US was initially reluctant to release him, but military charges against him were dropped and he was released to the UK in February 2009.

Although I have been encouraged on many occasions by Ministers’ repeated public declarations of official Government policy to return Mr Aamer to the UK, and by the frequency with which his case has been raised, Mr Aamer remains in Guantanamo. It is time, therefore, to explore other means of securing his release. That might, I suspect, involve increasing the pressure on the US Government, and pulling diplomatic levers that have not yet been considered. Diplomatically, how might the Government respond if another foreign Government were holding a British resident without charge? I know that Ministers have called for Mr Aamer’s release, but perhaps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should go further and consider making a public declaration, condemning his continued detention.

The US is one of Britain’s oldest and firmest friends. We are close allies and significant trading partners. Even if Ministers have to ruffle some diplomatic feathers to see Mr Aamer released, our relationship with the US would endure. Indeed, as I have said, releasing Mr Aamer to the UK would surely help President Obama to take another step towards fulfilling his now five-year-old pledge to close Guantanamo Bay.

There are a number of theories about why Mr Aamer remains detained. In The Mail on Sunday last week, David Rose suggested that Mr Aamer might have been present during the torture of another detainee who, I understand, later gave false information that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Clive Stafford Smith and others believe that the UK security services could be briefing against Mr Aamer through intelligence-sharing channels to keep him detained, perhaps to protect their reputation against accusations of complicity in torture. Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sought assurances that UK security services are not responsible for, or contributing to, Mr Aamer’s ongoing detention? I realise that the content of any such discussions cannot be shared, but have they even taken place?

Another route, which was discussed in detail with the Foreign Secretary and Mr Aamer’s lawyers when we met in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last year, is through the US’s National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The NDAA regulates defence spending, including on Guantanamo Bay, and also regulates how and when detainees can be transferred or released. Before 2012, granting certifications for transfers was made all but impossible because of the demanding obligations placed on the Secretary of State for Defence and others—the bar was set very high. However, since January 2012, the NDAA has included a new waiver mechanism, which allows the Secretary of State for Defence to release prisoners if any risk associated with their release has been “substantially mitigated”—that is the key phrase used. In October 2012, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that the NDAA 2012 and its new waiver mechanism might make Mr Aamer’s release more likely, and he agreed to pursue the matter of securing a waiver with any new US Administration. Is the Minister able to comment on whether any progress towards identifying and addressing the obstacles has been made?

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is asking all the right questions. Does she agree that it is the lack of transparency that is so damaging, and the sense that justice is being perpetually denied and delayed? Ultimately, that gives succour to the enemies of Britain and the US.

[Jane Ellison]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is the ultimate stain on democracy. A man should know why he is being deprived of his liberty and what he must do to win it back. That is how I come at it; that is one of the fundamental principles on which mature democracies base their thinking.

Will the Minister comment on whether some of the waiver steps have been satisfied, and what further steps we could take in Britain to satisfy the US authorities? One of the US’s concerns is the possible recidivism of released detainees, or, in the case of the many who did not commit an act of terrorism in the first place, whether their treatment in Guantanamo has inspired them to violence. Releases depend largely on whether the receiving country is trustworthy and able to demonstrate that it can significantly mitigate any risks of recidivism, and I strongly suggest that the UK is eminently trustworthy in that regard. After all, the US trusts us in a range of sensitive areas, for example shared intelligence and co-operation on joint military operations. Additionally, the NDAA requires the publication of a detailed report on incidences of recidivism and the countries in which they take place.

The UK has an exemplary record on reintegrating released detainees. To my knowledge, among all the Guantanamo detainees released to Britain, the sum total of recidivistic activity is a single speeding ticket. Indeed, I understand that the UK has the best record of any country to which a significant number of prisoners have been returned. The UK itself lives with a significant ongoing threat from international terrorism, and the fact that the UK Government are pressing for Mr Aamer’s return to this country is surely the clearest possible demonstration that they do not regard him as a risk, especially given that he is not a British citizen.