Hospitals

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

If hon. Members will bear with me, I will make a little bit more progress and then come back to them.

Many Liberal Democrat colleagues have made the argument that with hospitals in the state they are in, it is more important than ever to have a robust social care system in place. As the Minister for Care, I agree with them wholeheartedly, but it is simply not true to portray the Government as sitting on their hands while Baroness Casey gets cracking on her vital work. In fact, we have hit the ground running through a plethora of measures. We have legislated for the first ever fair pay agreement for social care in order to tackle the 130,000 vacancies we see today. We have delivered an extra 7,800 home adaptations through the disabled facilities grant to change the lives of thousands more disabled people for the better. In the Budget, the Chancellor provided the biggest increase in carer’s allowance since the 1970s, worth £2,000 a year to family carers and with an extra £3.7 billion for local authorities.

We are not hanging around on more structural reforms, either. We are introducing new standards to help people who use care, their families and providers to choose the most effective new technology as it comes on the market. We are joining up care and medical records, so that NHS and care staff have the full picture they need to provide the best possible care, and we are training more care workers to perform more health interventions, helping people to stay well and at home. Just two weeks ago, we announced a new qualification for social care staff, training them in artificial intelligence to automate routine tasks and motion sensors to detect falls. We are seizing the opportunities of care tech and harnessing it for the benefit of thousands who draw on care across our country.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

We are desperate to help the Minister in this endeavour, and look forward to receiving our invitations to the cross-party talks, which have yet to be issued. However, the Health and Social Care Committee heard today from an organisation called Think Ahead, which is the only organisation in the country that trains mental health social care workers. I have just heard that the Department of Health and Social Care is not refunding that organisation. Can the Minister explain why?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Baroness Casey is working at pace to get the commission up and running, and that will be launched this month. On her point about Think Ahead, the fundamental challenge we had with that programme was its relatively high unit costs. We are aiming to ensure that we deliver value for money for the taxpayer—I am sure that the hon. Lady shares that objective. We have to ensure that we deliver a programme for mental health social care work that delivers not only the best possible outcomes for our communities, but the best possible value for taxpayer money.

A lot has been done in the nine months since the election, but there is a huge amount more to do, and this Government are getting on with the job. Alongside the work I have described, the Government are putting record levels of investment into healthcare, with capital spending rising to £13.6 billion over this year and the next. That includes £1.5 billion for new surgical hubs, diagnostic scanners and beds across the NHS estate, as well as new radiotherapy machines to improve cancer treatment; over £1 billion to tackle RAAC and make inroads into the backlog of critical maintenance, repairs and upgrades across the NHS estate; and over £2 billion to be invested in NHS technology and digital. We are also taking the pressure off our hospitals through care in the community, and I am sure the whole House will welcome the fact that we have recruited 1,500 extra GPs on to the frontline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Lord Darzi’s independent investigation clearly set out the impact that “capital starvation” has had on the NHS in recent years, and the importance of capital spending to fixing the health service. The report highlighted substantial shortfalls in capital investment, combined with a tendency to raid capital budgets to cover in-year spending deficits, so I welcome today’s Liberal Democrat motion, which allows Parliament to highlight how important these issues are to the public. This is the second Liberal Democrat Opposition day, and it is the second time we have debated health and social care. It is because it is a priority for the country that it is a priority for us.

The Health and Social Care Committee has taken a keen interest in the new hospital programme. We have challenged the Government to maintain their capital spending and not fall into the traps of the past, when capital spending was redirected to fund day-to-day spending, so I was pleased to receive confirmation from the Department, and now from the Dispatch Box, that the Chancellor’s changes to the fiscal rules will stop future raids on the capital budget, or CDEL, to fund the day-to-day spending budget, or RDEL. That is hugely welcome. However, although the protection of capital budgets is reassuring, I remain concerned about the lack of transparency around how the funding is allocated by the Treasury.

The charge levelled at the Government is that funding is being funnelled into acute care to tackle waiting lists, at the expense of funding primary care, infrastructure and care in the community. Clearly, on current commitments, we will not see capital funding that is sufficient to meet anything close to the unfunded promises made by the Tories in 2020. Nevertheless, the principle of investing in our hospital infrastructure is good; money will be saved in the long run on maintenance and emergency repairs, as well as providing a better quality of care.

In the policy paper on the plan for implementing the new hospital programme, the Government stated that funding will reach only £3 billion in the early 2030s due to

“other key priorities in health spending, such as funding to enable the Secretary of State’s 3 shifts”.

That is good, but we need transparency around how decisions were made and which projects were chosen. In January, the Secretary of State provided the criteria by which the schemes were scored and funding was allocated, such as site constraints and maturity of planning permission, but it is disappointing that, as I understand it—I am willing to be corrected—the review was conducted without the involvement of the trust teams responsible for delivering the rebuilding programmes. As of last month, no trust with a new hospital programme scheme has been provided with the full details of how it scored specifically against the criteria.

The Health and Social Care Committee has asked how the Department is prioritising schemes and has not received a clear answer, so my question is very simple: in the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State publish, for every single new hospital programme scheme that was subject to last year’s review, the details and findings of the Department’s assessment of them against each of the criteria that were published alongside his statement in the House of Commons on 20 January 2025? It is the very least that the schemes that felt deprioritised deserve, and we are hearing many examples of those from Members of different parties. I choose to believe that this outcome is inadvertent but, frankly, it just looks a bit shady. We have seen it happen before with the levelling-up money under the previous Government. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I know many Members have served, as have I, has a motto: sunlight is the best disinfectant. If the Government will not publish the detailed assessment, the Minister needs to explain why.

My local area, like so many others, has been affected by this issue. Last year I visited the John Radcliffe hospital, which serves much of Oxfordshire, and I saw at first hand how its capacity to deliver care is being severely constrained by the size and condition of the physical estate. We went to visit the old site of the neonatal intensive care unit, which had to be moved because the staff were worried about the ceiling literally coming down on sick children and on incubators. It was atrocious.

The John Radcliffe hospital wants to be world-leading. It is a specialist tertiary care hospital, which means it is able to perform very specialist surgery, and it wants a new building to do that in. When it put to the Government a bid for £28 million, it was rejected. Instead, it has gone out to seek private financing, and it will now cost the trust £46 million to deliver the exact same building. Would it not have made sense for the Government to allow the trust to borrow from the Government to build it, and then to pay the money back from its own reserves over time? Think what it could have done with that £18 million.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I know the John Radcliffe hospital, which serves some of my constituents. The hon. Lady has made a powerful case about the amount of money that has potentially been lost through this process. Would she, however, reflect on the role played by her party, particularly the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and the amount of money wasted on the disastrous top-down reorganisation of the NHS under the coalition Government?

[Layla Moran]

I have to say that that was quite a segue. We are focusing on the capital estate. We all know that there were problems with the Lansley reform. In fact, I welcome the fact that it is being unravelled, and I was pretty vocal about it at the time.

The savings the John Radcliffe could have realised might have been spent on hospital at home services and other ways to divert people away from coming into A&E in the first place.

Across the wider Oxford university hospitals NHS foundation trust, £100 million of backlog is deemed as high or significant risk. Pausing or delaying plans to rebuild hospitals is a false economy, and hospitals around the country, including the John Radcliffe, are overspending on maintenance as a result. That is not limited to our hospitals; we are also seeing it in GP practices, many of which date from well before 1948. I will declare an interest in that my own surgery—the Summertown health centre—is one of those practices. It is doing incredibly well, despite working out of a very old Victorian building. It is desperate for a new site, and it was deemed one of the top priorities for the ICB. I note that the Minister mentioned a figure of £102 million, but, frankly, that does not touch the sides.

As in the case of the John Radcliffe, the Summertown health centre is now going out to seek private finance, which it will find a way to pay back slowly over time. The Exchequer would not even have to lay out this money in advance, and even with inflation, the amount it would get back is less than what the health centre has to pay to do this with private finance. I ask the Government to think about this innovatively. It is not the same as the PFI. It is the Government using their own borrowing rules to allow investment in vital public services, and it makes no sense that they cannot do it.

When it comes to mental health services, we have the incredible Warneford hospital in Oxfordshire, and Warneford Park in Oxford will provide a new cutting-edge mental health hospital surrounded by a research and innovation hub. Groundbreaking research is planned on understanding brain health and discovering new drug therapies and new forms of treatment. This is a great vision, but it will cost £500 million. We do have private benefactors, including local businesses, willing to feed into it, but where is the funding pot for mental health trusts? They were excluded from the new hospital programme, and it is not at all clear where that kind of money may be found.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I would like to share a story from a constituent who called me last night. Her daughter had psychosis and was locked in a room at the local hospital, with a mattress on the floor and two security guards outside. She was there for a week waiting for mental health provision in a setting outside the hospital. I would like the Minister to tell me what mental health provision will be in place.

[Layla Moran]

I am so sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. In Lord Darzi’s report, there are some stark pictures of him sitting in substandard accommodation for the very sickest in our society. The Health and Social Care Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into severe mental ill health, because we know that mental health is so often forgotten in the NHS. It is good that the mental health investment standard has been continued, but it is sad that the overall spend as a proportion of NHS spend is going down this year for the first time in the last few years. We very much hope that this is not a trend, but a one-off, and that it will continue to rise from next year.

For the Warneford, we need to understand what new innovative funding pots we can put together. We understand that the Government are working across Departments, and this project would be as much of an advantage to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as to the Department of Health and Social Care. Where are these pots of money, because they are important?

I will end simply by saying that I completely agree with the thrust of the motion—and, indeed, with what the Government have themselves said—which is that if we invest in capital expenditure, we need to take an invest to save approach. We know that this matters to our constituents, and we know that they cannot get the services they so desperately need. If we are to achieve the three shifts, we should not be pitting them against each other. Investing in capital will help the three shifts to succeed, and we do will the Government and the NHS to succeed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Emily Darlington.