Health and Care Bill

Debate between John Baron and Jeremy Corbyn

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Mr Speaker for selecting my new clause 19. I also thank all those who have kindly supported it.

It remains an inconvenient truth that although our cancer survival rates are improving, we continue to lag behind international comparators. The primary reason for this is that the NHS does not diagnose cancers early enough. New clause 19 seeks to put that right by placing improved outcomes—that is, survival rates—at the heart of the NHS.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I strongly support the new clause. Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that there can be delays in obtaining GP appointments in the first place, and someone who feels that they may be suffering from some form of cancer often loses several days—if not, on some sad occasions, weeks— before they get into the NHS system for treatment?

[Mr Baron]

I tend to agree, and that is in part what the new clause is intended to address.

I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on cancer for nine years. We were painfully aware that the Government had once estimated that if the country matched the best survival rates in Europe, 10,000 lives a year would be saved. In 2013, the OECD confirmed that that our survival rates ranked near the bottom when compared to those of other major economies. As we have improved our rates, so have other countries, and we are not closing the gap. A more fundamental change is required.

Back in 2009, when I first became its chairman, the APPG conducted a major inquiry which showed that the main reason our survival rates lagged behind others was not that the NHS was any worse than other healthcare systems at treating cancer once it was detected, but that it was not as good at catching cancers in the crucial early stages. In other words, late diagnosis lay behind our comparatively poor survival rates. The APPG had some success in getting the one-year survival rates—rates of survival one year after diagnosis—into the NHS DNA.

A key advantage of focusing on this kind of “outcome measure” is that it gives healthcare professionals much greater freedom and flexibility to design their own solutions, which could include running wider screening programmes and better awareness campaigns, and establishing greater diagnostic capabilities at primary care. A further advantage of focusing on outcome measures is that it will better align NHS priorities with patient needs. Survival rates are what really matter to patients. However, clinical commissioning groups are too often focused on “process targets”—the 62-day wait for treatment being an example—because they are often linked to funding. The one-year survival rate measure was not.

Research produced by the House of Commons Library found that nine such process targets were applicable to cancer alone, such as the 62-day wait. Process targets have a role to play in improving the NHS, but all too often they are a blunt tool offering information without context, and they can be exclusive, especially when funding flows are attached. Also, I consider it unacceptable that, in the case of certain cancers at least, patients should have to wait for 62 days—two months, in effect—for treatment. That is simply not right. Furthermore, process targets can easily become a political football between the two Front Benches, and only short-term points are scored. All sides are guilty of this, but it rarely helps patients.

In addition, process targets are not the best way of helping those with rarer cancers, with often fall between the cracks because data on those cancer types have not been routinely collected. That is a real problem. If we want to drive up survival rates, we cannot exclude rarer cancers, if only because they account for more than half all cancer cases.

Given the advantages of outcome measures such as one-year survival rates, I have tabled my simple amendment, new clause 19. Its aim is to ensure that NHS England puts outcome measures above process targets.

European Union (Withdrawal)

Debate between John Baron and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I think I am right in saying that on two occasions I voted alongside the Prime Minister against those deals.

I understand that Members on both sides of the House are under a great deal of pressure in what is, regrettably, an extremely volatile political climate, but if you truly trust in what all the analysis shows—including the Government’s own analysis, as was demonstrated earlier—if you believe in what the experts say and if you understand that a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for this country, you must act now.

With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have shown the political courage to boldly stand up for what they believe in by bringing this debate to the House. The bullying and the threats to Conservative Members from their own side is unprecedented, but let me offer some words of encouragement. [Interruption.] It is all right; I am trying to help. Standing by your principles does not always damage your future prospects.

[Mr Baron]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I suggest that he should be careful with his selection of evidence? The Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England all made predictions of doom and gloom if we voted to leave in 2016. They said there would be economic disaster by Christmas 2016, and they were all wrong. Since then there has been record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment, in the full knowledge that no deal is better than a bad deal.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The only problem is that it flies in the face of all the facts that are published day in, day out. The value of the pound is falling and manufacturing industry is falling, and I will come on to a number of other industries that are seriously at threat.

I pay tribute to those people across all parties who have come together and continued to work to make a stand against this Government’s reckless and shambolic approach. The Prime Minister says that now is not the time for Parliament to make this stand. He says the chances of a Brexit deal are improving and that the outlines of an agreement are in the making, yet all the evidence points to the contrary. So far, in their six weeks in office, this Government have spent more time trying to avoid scrutiny and trying to silence Parliament than focusing on getting a good deal for this country. With weeks to go until we crash out of the European Union, they have failed to bring forward any new proposals, especially with regard to the Irish backstop.

Even if the Government had worked up new plans or presented a way forward, it seems very unlikely that the EU would agree to the Prime Minister’s red line of scrapping the backstop. As the Attorney General reportedly put it, such a proposition would be a “complete fantasy.” The reality is that no progress has been made in Brussels, nor is there likely to be. This reckless Government only have one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal, at whatever price to our industry, to people’s jobs and to people’s living standards.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Debate between John Baron and Jeremy Corbyn

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), as we have similar views on this issue.

As those Committee colleagues who are here will know, I voted against this report. It will come as no surprise to the majority of Members present that I come to this afternoon’s debate as a sceptic about our mission generally. Having cautioned against our deployment in Afghanistan and voted against the Government’s continued policy—in the one opportunity that we had to debate and vote on the issue, last year—I remain deeply worried about our progress generally. To reflect briefly on the past, our intervention defied all the lessons of history. We fundamentally underestimated the task and we under-resourced it accordingly. We have been playing catch-up every since. Having served as a platoon commander in South Armagh during the 1980s, I have no doubt that the mission suffered in particular from low troop density levels. We have suffered as a result.

My criticism is not levelled at the troops. We all know that they have done everything that could have been asked of them. They and we can be proud of what they have achieved. Rather, my criticism is levelled at the US and UK Governments, who have failed because they have not recognised two fundamental distinctions, which even at this late stage could salvage something positive from this otherwise sorry affair. First, we have failed to distinguish between the key objective of keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and the four main goals on which that objective is said to depend. Those goals include the achievement of a stable and secure Afghanistan. In fact, the key objective and the attainment of those goals have become confused to the extent that the goals have become ends in themselves. This has given rise to mission creep and loss of focus. The talk of nation building, women’s rights and human rights are but three examples. In effect, we have become missionaries instead of focusing on the mission.

In my view, this confusion permeates the report. For example, the report assesses progress against each of the so-called goals instead of focusing on the key objective. We go into great detail in the report about what we are doing on women’s rights and human rights, for example. The goals are a means to an end, however, not the end in itself. Our main mission in Afghanistan is not to build a better country but to defeat al-Qaeda, and our losing sight of that fact has cost us dearly. That is why I voted against the report, having tried unsuccessfully to make a series of amendments. We are not in Afghanistan to build a better country; we are there to defeat al-Qaeda.

This confusion of purpose has gone to the top of Government. When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister, he claimed that our troops were in Afghanistan to protect the citizens of London from terrorism, yet in almost the same sentence he threatened President Karzai with troop withdrawal if he did not end the corruption in his Government. That clearly illustrated the confusion, and I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in Prime Minister’s questions back in 2008 that those two statements did not fit well together.

Last year, the coalition Government gave a deadline of 2015 for troop withdrawal. Again, that is inconsistent. If our commitment is conditions-based—in other words, if it is to defeat al-Qaeda—one cannot logically place a deadline on it. Yet the Government have made it clear that all combat troops will be withdrawn by the due date, regardless of the situation on the ground. It is therefore little wonder that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have admitted that their communications strategy needs to be reviewed, as it appears that Joe Public has still not got the message. Someone should perhaps ask why, after 10 years, the message is somewhat confused. Could it be that the mission itself is incoherent? If that is the case, there is little point in shooting the messenger.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any evidence whatever that the streets of London have been made safer by our presence in Afghanistan? Or does he believe that our involvement has caused radicalisation and perhaps made London a more dangerous place, and that we need to look to our foreign policy if we want to make ourselves secure?

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I certainly think that our recent aggressive interventions have radicalised parts of the Muslim world against us—a fact that I think was confirmed by a former head of MI5 in giving evidence. I certainly do not think that our involvement has helped our situation, and I see no concrete evidence that the situation has improved in regard to the threat on the streets of London. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.

The bottom line is that there is confusion of purpose, and the first distinction that we are failing to make is that between achieving the objective and the four main goals.

The second distinction that the Government are failing to explore rigorously is that between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The relationship is complex and not well understood. There is no shortage of evidence—some was submitted to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—to suggest that the Taliban would not necessarily allow al-Qaeda back into the country if the Taliban were to regain control of certain regions. They know that, ultimately, al-Qaeda led to their downfall. Indeed, US intelligence sources suggest that fewer than 100 al-Qaeda fighters and certainly no al-Qaeda bases are left in the country. To all intents and purposes, we have achieved our mission some time ago—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made well. We all know that the Taliban are not a homogeneous group, but there are fundamental differences between the Taliban and al-Qaeda—yet the threats from al-Qaeda and the Taliban have become conflated and almost synonymous.