Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I think cancer patients in the hon. Lady’s constituency will welcome the fact that under this Government Leicester hospital has 194 more nurses and 120 more doctors, many of them involved in cancer care.

Let me answer the hon. Lady’s question directly. There is pressure on one of the cancer standards, and that is because every year we are now diagnosing 460,000 more people than happened under the last Labour Government, who left us with such a disappointing survival rate. When that many people are being diagnosed, it of course puts pressure on the diagnostic labs and the people doing those processes. But Cancer Research UK is also saying that we are seeing record increases in survival from cancer, and that is happening because of this Government’s policies.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

7. Whether the Government have made a final decision on whether to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

The Government have not yet made a final decision on whether to introduce standardised packaging. We are carefully considering a large number of responses from the summer consultation, together with detailed responses from EU member states.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for her answer, albeit a disappointing one. Given the majority support for standardised packaging in this place and the fact that elected Members have backed it, perhaps she could explain why the Government have not come to a decision? Will she consider having a debate in the House on the subject, with a vote that people can take forward so that they believe that this Government actually care about people who are trying to stop smoking?

[Jane Ellison]

We are taking this forward. Not everyone in the House may be aware that we are obliged to go through a process with Europe, whereby we notify this policy to EU member states and there is a statutory three months during which member states can give a detailed response. If any member state does so, there is a six-month pause. Four states—Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Romania—have given that detailed opinion, and the window has not yet closed. The House might be interested to know that Ireland received eight detailed responses on this subject. That is part of the process.

National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

John Robertson Excerpts

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

The hon. Gentleman was on the Bill Committee for the 2012 legislation, and I wonder how many amendments he tabled to put those issues right. And he has the cheek to come here and ask questions about my Bill, which seeks to put right what he did not attempt to put right when he was on that Committee.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this Bill to its Second Reading debate. The Government have been throwing all these facts and figures at us about how the number of doctors is increasing all the time, but these things started under Labour. It takes seven years for a doctor to be a decent practitioner, and we are the ones who made a start on this, not the Government.

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the claim that this Government, whose top-down reorganisation has caused so much chaos in the national health service, are responsible for the standards of the NHS now is laughable. They claim to have turned the NHS around in a short space of time, but they are standing on the shoulders of the achievement of the previous Labour Government.

Care Workers

John Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

May I, too, declare an interest, as a Unison member, and say how important it is that this issue has been flagged up in the debate? Given the concerns about this issue, should home care not be part and parcel of the discussions about the future of the NHS? We need to keep people out of accident and emergency and out of hospitals. If there is no care in the community, we will put more expense on the NHS and provide worse care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in discussions about the future of the NHS, we should make absolutely sure that these workers are paid a proper rate for the job and that travelling time is included? The Care Quality Commission has a vital role in this.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask hon. Members to keep interventions a bit shorter.

[Mr Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend on all points. If this country is to get the standard of care we want, social care—home as well as residential—must be regarded as a central part of health service provision. The debate on health provision cannot be confined to the future of the NHS.

Providers made the point to me that 15-minute visits should be banned, except perhaps for check-up visits when other visits are being made to the person on the same day. I am pleased to say that since I raised that issue in our previous Westminster Hall debate about care, Oxfordshire county council has decided to phase them out. Others must do so too. There is a need for sustained funding and a co-ordinated push for training, to bring social care staff up to the standards required for commissioned services.

We need a scheme of accreditation that makes crossover into the NHS and back possible if we are to provide a career pathway to attract young people, and indeed some older people, into the care profession. Training should be part of an overall package that attracts people into care work. A carer who has had training should have certification that they can take with them to another employer. Those are points that providers have put to me. They point out that too many agencies do not even give carers their certificates, so they have no proof, and must go through the assessment—where it is provided—again. We must also have regard to the fact that the public and media perception of care too often stops at the NHS, and does not include social care. Protecting the NHS goes only part way to protecting our care system. We will protect the NHS by protecting social care, and that means that more money must go to local government. That is another point put to me by providers.

On the question of zero-hours contracts, I have been in touch with two local providers who have tried to offer salaried employment as an alternative, but have had little take-up, partly because employees are juggling a second job, and partly because they value the flexibility that allows them not to work, for example, on certain weekends. The zero-hours culture is deeply entrenched in home care work, and it will not be easy to change it, but I believe we must. The key priorities must be to ensure: that the contract does not preclude the employee from taking other work—it is disgraceful that it ever could; that the employee has reasonable freedom to take or refuse work as they like, to have time with their own family, for example; and that an exclusive zero-hours contract is not imposed. Let us also remember, however, the point of view of the person being cared for, the most important person in the debate. They usually want continuity in care, and they are less likely to get that with zero-hours contracts, under which a different carer will be sent to them time after time.

As well as the bigger reforms that I have mentioned, there are practical steps, which may vary a bit from locality to locality, that can make home carers’ jobs a little less of a struggle, and I will talk about some that are relevant in Oxfordshire. In Oxford, we have extensive residents parking zones. Home care workers must find one of the sparse two-hour spaces or get a visitor permit from the client and stick it on their car. That is one third of their 15-minute visit gone. Otherwise, they risk a fine—which is of course levied by the same county council that pays their employer to send them on the call. A way of recognising the value of home carers’ work would be to give them a permit to park in residents parking zones when visiting clients.

Another example, which is probably even more widely relevant, is that people who work in the NHS branch of the care system get a free winter flu jab. A home care worker on the minimum wage often will not get a jab unless they spend two or three hours’ worth of their meagre pay on buying one. Recognition of the value of their work could include giving them a free jab, either on the NHS or by requiring employers to make them available. I checked the 2014-15 Public Health England flu immunisation programme guidance, to which the Minister may want to refer. It states that flu immunisation should of course be offered to health and social care staff who are in direct contact with patients and service users. It states that they should be vaccinated by their employer as part of an occupational health programme. However, that raises the question of what happens when an employer does not offer the vaccination: is it the same as when an employer does not pay the minimum wage, and nothing happens?

I think there is a growing consensus among clients and providers, councils and trade unions, about what needs to be done in the vital service area of care. First, better funding is needed for social and home care. People will not get the standard of care that they need and deserve without it. The NHS chief executive’s vision of more care being provided in the community will be a mirage unless we raise care workers’ status and terms and conditions. Secondly, we need rigorous enforcement of the minimum wage and promotion of the living wage. Thirdly, care workers should have the right not to have a zero-hours contract forced on them. Fourthly, commissioning should encourage responsible providers. Fifthly, there should be investment in training and career pathways for care workers, with proper accreditation of care work. Sixthly, there should be regulation of the social care work force. That could start with the record of those unfit to practise that the Health and Care Professions Council has advocated.

We should all recognise the enormous value of the work that home carers do, and translate that recognition into action to improve their status, pay and training, to nurture good providers who are good employers, and to drive out the rogue operators. We would do well to remember every day that our loved ones, and we ourselves, are likely to need a home carer some day. Much good work is done by front-line carers, but too many of them are treated shabbily. That must be stopped. We must make sure that carers get the status, training and pay that they deserve, so that those who need care and those who give it can enjoy better lives, with dignity and respect.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. If hon. Members will be sensible, there will enough time for everyone to take part. I will not impose time limits at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members could keep their contribution to eight minutes, that would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate. The issues have been set out admirably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and others. I apologise in advance for the fact that I cannot stay for the wind-ups.

We are facing a scandalous situation. The people who do some of the most difficult jobs in our society are not even reaching the minimum wage because of the scams that are being perpetrated in the care sector. They are not paid for travel, they are on zero-hours contracts, and other scams are perpetrated against them. When I talk to care workers in my constituency, I see that they are decent people who just want to do a decent week’s work, and I can see what that means. They have to rush between appointments, and they feel guilty about not being able to spend time with their clients. They believe that the care they are giving is not of the quality that people should receive.

Care is not just about getting somebody washed and dressed, or giving them their breakfast; it is what it says it is. Care is about spending time with people, listening to them and talking about the problems they face. It says much about our care workers that, as well as worrying about their own wages, as they are entitled to do, they worry about the impact on their clients of what is, frankly, a rotten system.

Let us consider what really happens. If care workers are on zero-hours contracts, they are paid only for their actual appointments, and not for their travelling time. It is estimated that 220,000 people are not being paid the minimum wage. That has been allowed to happen for far too long—those 220,000 people cannot meet their bills at the end of the week, despite working full time. Does the Minister honestly understand what that means? I do, because I remember it from my earlier life. It means running out of money by the end of the week and relying on friends or family to help out. Friends and family bring things saying, “Well, I got it as a two-for-one offer,” or, “This was on sale,” but people know they were not and that their friends and family are trying to spare their feelings. Zero-hours contracts mean that it is a crisis when a child needs a new pair of shoes or grows out of their coat. That is the position that we inflict on people who do some of the most difficult jobs in our society by caring for the elderly and the disabled—the most vulnerable. I suspect that most of us in this room could never do those jobs, except for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who has actually done it.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that nearly half of the firms it inspected in the care sector were not paying the minimum wage. Very few of those firms have even been named and shamed. How many of them have actually been prosecuted? As the Minister said, they are criminals. In what other sector of life would we say to a criminal, “We know you are doing it, and we would like you to stop. We are not actually taking you to court, and we are not prosecuting you. We know you are a burglar, but will you just give it up?” We do that with the minimum wage, which is an absolute disgrace. The Government must take responsibility. Yes, some local councils must take responsibility, too. It is true that local councils do not always monitor the contracts that they give out, do not ensure that people are paid properly and do not check workers’ wages, but that is not surprising given the situation in which they find themselves.

It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) to tell us about the duties he imposed on local councils, but if we will the end, we have to will the means. It is a fact that the councils that face the most draconian cuts under the Government’s Local Government Finance Act 2012 are also the councils that have the highest levels of long-term disability and the biggest need for social care.

If the Government want to impose duties on local councils, they have an obligation to ensure that those councils have money available to meet those duties, otherwise councils will simply put the responsibility elsewhere and fail to meet their own. We know what happens when such systems are in place, and we know what happens when care workers cannot spend enough time with their clients: health problems go undetected, and people’s feelings of loneliness and isolation increase, driving up mental health problems. There are more falls and more admissions to hospital. There is a cost to the people concerned, and to the NHS, because a good care system cannot be run on the cheap. It requires properly trained, properly paid and properly supervised staff. The most vulnerable people in our society deserve no less. The Government have been trying to run care on the cheap, on the backs of dedicated workers who are being treated shamefully, and it is time that that stopped.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for their use of time.

111 Telephone Service

John Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

The 111 service is a tool and should never be a substitute for the ability visit a GP. I accept that we cannot expect GPs and their families to put up with the antisocial hours of GPs of my father’s generation, who were leaving the profession in droves. I see 111 as a useful tool—an appendage, not a substitute. There are issues that must be addressed in that regard.

Will the system be reviewed, and if so will it be within three or six months? I repeat: is 111 really geared up to deal with sparsely populated rural areas such as those that a number of us here today represent? North Yorkshire has a sparsely populated rural area—one of the largest in the country—and a high number of older patients with complex medical needs, which the GPs are very cognisant of.

I welcome the Health Committee’s inquiry into 111 and NHS emergency care. We will all doubtless follow the proceedings, and look forward to its conclusions and recommendations with some interest.

This debate has been a wonderful opportunity to get a number of issues off my chest; to pay tribute, I hope, to my father; and to note my disappointment at how he and others were treated in the pilot scheme. I hope the issues I have raised can be addressed. The 111 service may be a useful tool—an appendage—but we need to look closely at what more needs to be done, and I invite the Government to do so. I am fearful of delegating the operation of all emergency services outwith political control, and I return to the point about where the political accountability for 111 lies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s considered response to the debate.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech and I offer her my condolences on the loss of her father, which I am sure applies to every colleague here.

Pre-Paid Meters (Level of Debt)

John Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to raise the level of debt below which pre-paid meter customers may change their energy supplier; and for connected purposes.

I raised this issue in Parliament before through an oral question to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 26 January 2012 at column 401 of Hansard, and again in a written question on 1 May 2012 at column 1506W. On the first occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would ask Ofgem to look at the matter in detail, and on the latter, he said that it was to be dealt with by Ofgem. In the interests of hundreds of thousands of energy customers, I am presenting the Bill today to get some actual movement.

Through raising the level of debt at which pre-paid meter customers may change their energy supplier from £200 to £350, around 200,000 customers could escape crippling energy tariffs. It is a tiny change, but it would make a huge difference. I have mentioned time and again how the cartel-like big six have too much power. By trapping disadvantaged customers into extortionate tariffs, they are proving once again that they need to be shown what it means to be fair and responsible.

The profits of the big six energy companies have gone up almost a third since 2008, and payouts to shareholders increased across the board an incredible sixfold since 1999 in the case of Centrica, which owns British Gas. This is the time for it, and others, to give something back.

If each of those 200,000 customers were to save a maximum of £138 a year, it would cost energy companies a combined £27.5 million. That sounds like a lot until we realise that last year, British Gas alone made 12 times that amount in profit. Furthermore, the money saved by those 200,000 people would be spent on paying back debts to energy companies, so it is not that bad. I have spoken with Ofgem about this matter. It agrees with me in principle, although as usual it moves at snail’s pace. I would like to see it move quicker on this simple solution to the debt of hundreds of thousands of people. Let us work together to get a fair deal for prepayment customers.

In January 2010, Ofgem changed its policy so that customers with a debt of £200 or less were able to switch energy supplier as long as the new supplier was willing to take on that debt, which in most instances was the case. More people were able to take advantage of greater savings to be made by switching supplier, which meant that they could pay off their arrears more easily, cutting short a spiral of mounting debt. The £200 debt level worked then, but we could and should do more now.

More than 1.5 million electricity and gas customers are currently in debt, and almost 1 million of those can switch supplier to get a better deal on their energy tariff. The Bill would add 200,000 people to that figure and ensure a fairer system. Importantly, those 200,000 people are among the most disadvantaged in our society, and chose a prepayment meter as a way of responsibly managing their weekly budget. About a quarter of prepayment meter customers are thought to be fuel poor, and they are disproportionately represented in the social housing rented sector. People are three times more likely to be in debt if their income is in the lowest quintile, and it is evident that the 200,000 people I have mentioned are among those struggling to pay rising food and housing costs, and, of course, energy bills.

According to Which?, 84% of people are worried about their energy bills. Consumers spend one week a year worrying about their finances, and people with less debt are often happier. What do our outdated regulations do? They add extra worry to people who are already concerned about job security and a double-dip recession. There are examples of people fiddling their meters to try and reduce their energy bills, and the number of people doing that has risen 30% since 2007. I do not say that that is right—it is not and there is a price to be paid—but I understand why they are doing it.

I am even more concerned about people who reduce their energy usage in order to save money to pay off their debt. The number of pensioners dying from cold has nearly doubled in five years. Last winter, Save the Children found that half of all families planned to turn the heating off for longer to keep their bills down, leading to problems such as children in cold homes being twice as likely to suffer from respiratory problems. I would not be surprised if some people are cutting down their energy use in order to pay off their debt, which is completely unacceptable. We can tackle the problem by giving 200,000 people the freedom to make their debt more manageable by switching to a cheaper tariff or company.

Some people are very badly affected by their debt, and it is sad that it is so easy for them to get into such a position. For example, they may not have been identified as vulnerable by energy companies, and been placed on a prepayment meter after racking up hundreds of pounds of debt while struggling to pay astronomical energy bills on a credit meter. Energy companies need to take responsibility for such confusions and mistakes, and allow people to switch suppliers to help them pay off their debts.

For my more business-friendly opponents and colleagues, I will also outline the benefits of this proposal to the energy companies themselves. As it stands, £478 million is owed to energy companies, and by making it easier for a large proportion of customers to pay that back, energy companies can recoup their losses. uSwitch estimates that pre-paid meter customers could save £138 a year just by switching, so a £350 debt could be paid off in just over two years without them making any sacrifices. Both customers and energy companies would be better off; it would be a win-win situation.

Those are arguments for increasing the debt level, but why should we increase it from £200 to £350? First, the £100 limit was increased to £200 in 2010 to reflect higher energy bills and debt levels, but times have changed. Energy bills have increased by 140% in eight years and by 20% in the last two years. They have risen seven times faster than household income and continue to rise. SSE announced a price hike of 9% on 22 August, despite a 7.7% rise in its pre-tax profits over the past year. I am sure there are more price rises to follow and that history will repeat itself: when one company raises its prices, the others are never far behind. The average amount of debt is now around £350. That is the average and not the maximum. In the past two years, severe cuts have led to a double-dip recession, making it even harder for those involved. Ofgem agrees that the level is currently too low, but we need to speed up the process.

Secondly, £200 is not what it used to be. Its value has decreased by more than 10% since the level was set. It would not buy an iPhone or a BlackBerry or any of the company phones that the energy company executives walk around with. It would not buy a return ticket to EDF’s global headquarters in Paris, E.ON’s global headquarters in Düsseldorf or Scottish Power’s global headquarters in Bilbao, and yet for energy customers in debt who are unable to switch their tariff, paying the money back can be demanding and tiring. If we can agree on that, we will have the chance to make a small change to an outdated regulation that will make a huge difference to hundreds of thousands of people. Those are the people we need to help most, because they are vulnerable to debt and in fuel poverty.

I have taken the lead with help from my supporters and colleagues. All who work on energy issues have made such efforts at some point or another. This should be a lesson to Ofgem. Its job is to look at these issues and ensure customers have a fair deal. As I said, I began asking this question back in January. If Ofgem had sorted the problem out at that time, I would not be standing here today. I could have stopped at that point and left the matter with Ofgem, but the sad fact is that I did not feel I could leave Ofgem to get on with dealing with it quickly. I am therefore introducing the Bill to ensure that the debt level is changed before the winter, before other people die because of their energy costs.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That John Robertson, Mr Tim Yeo, Albert Owen, Laura Sandys, Dr Alan Whitehead, David Simpson, Mr Mike Weir, Jim Sheridan, Mr Alan Reid, Cathy Jamieson, Ian Lavery and Sir Robert Smith present the Bill.

John Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 65).

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—you do not have to smile.

In 1624, as I am sure you are aware, the House decided that no Member could resign their seat. In 1680, we decided that we would invent the legal fiction that a Member appointed to an office of profit under the Crown is deemed to have resigned their seat. At the beginning of August this year, Mrs Louise Mensch— I make no criticism of her whatever—believed she had resigned her seat, but was not appointed to an office of profit under the Crown for a further three and a half weeks. Consequently, she described herself as a “resigned MP”, but was none the less a Member of Parliament, because a Member has not resigned their seat until the Chancellor appoints them to the office.

I raise this matter as a point of order because there is an important matter of precedent here. I am not aware of any time in the past when there has been such a delay, other than in 1842 when the Government refused for party political purposes to appoint a Member so as not to allow a by-election.

Social Care Funding

John Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the highest priorities for the allocation of funds should be to support those families who care for elderly relatives at home? They often make great sacrifices and incur great costs. We must ensure that we give them the recognition and appreciation that they deserve, and one way in which we can tangibly do that is by ensuring that they have clear access to support from funds. Often, a very small amount of funding can make a big difference to those families and can ensure that they are able to continue caring for their relatives in their own homes for much longer. Should we not be treating that as a priority?

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) makes her point very passionately, as she always does, in standing up for the family. Of course, it is the family who take full responsibility in most cases for the care of elderly people, but we must remember that the funding of adult social care is also available for adults living with disabilities. Families are the foundation of all care at the moment. I am sure that, with the Government’s support, they will continue to be the core building block of the care system. She is quite right to raise that issue so that we can all show appreciation for the huge army of people who are quietly getting along each day to provide invaluable support to their loved ones.

The commission made a series of key recommendations. I cannot do justice to the report in the time that I have available, but to help our debate, I will summarise them briefly. The major one is to cap the lifetime contribution that an individual needs to make to adult social care costs to £35,000. Not everyone will be able to afford to make a personal contribution, so the commission recommended that means-tested support should continue and that the asset threshold for those in residential care, beyond which no means-tested help is given, should increase from £23,250, as it is today, to £100,000. Those who enter adulthood with a care and support need should immediately be eligible for free state support.

The commission also recommended reconsideration of the existing benefits that support the elderly. People should contribute to their living costs, which the commission estimated as between £7,000 and £10,000 a year. It recommended that the Government should urgently develop a more objective eligibility and assessment framework and that they should encourage people to plan ahead for later life with an awareness campaign, and develop a major new information and advice strategy to help people when the need for care arises. Carers should be supported by improved assessments, which should take place alongside the assessment of the person being cared for. Finally, the Government should review the scope for improving the integration of adult social care and other services, such as NHS services and housing, to deliver better outcomes for individuals and better value for the taxpayer.

The commission’s report was met by a broad coalition of support from a wide range of stakeholders and was warmly welcomed by all political parties. That contrasts with the acrimonious debates on the issue during the general election campaign. Since the report’s publication, the Department of Health has committed to consult on the recommendations and to consider other important recommendations proposed by the Law Commission.

The Government have recognised that they must take urgent action to address the current funding issues. While real spending on the NHS has risen by £25 billion since 2004, spending on social care for older people and adults with disabilities has simply not kept pace. Figures from the Department show that over the past four years, demand has outstripped expenditure by 9%. Since the coalition came to power, it has clearly understood that that balance in expenditure is wrong. Money for the NHS has been redirected to councils so that they can spend more money to support families, elderly people and adults living with disabilities to live independent lives. Additional money has been allocated for a range of support to enable people to remain safely in their own home and for adaptations that prevent accidents and illnesses that lead to people having to spend time in hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I share his wish for continuing improvement in the maternity services at Milton Keynes hospital. I can tell him and the House that we are delivering on our commitment to improve maternity services, which is at the heart of that wish. The number of midwifery training places commissioned for next year—2011-12—will be no less than this year, sustaining a record number of midwives in training. That will be on top of an increase between May and November 2010—after the coalition Government came in—of 296 additional midwives employed in the NHS.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T6. Following on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on the £2 billion that the Secretary of State is using for his top-down reorganisation, does the Minister feel that that kind of money, which was not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, would be better spent on health care and on building new hospitals?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that his figures are wrong? The cost of the modernisation of the NHS is £1.4 billion by 2012-13. That will be recouped in savings that by the end of this Parliament will be £1.7 billion a year, every year till the end of the decade, of which every single penny will be reinvested in front-line services and for patients.