The National Health Service

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are absolutely acting on the area that the hon. Lady quite rightly raises. The number of patients who are in in-patient facilities who have learning disabilities and/or autism has been falling—the number has fallen from 2,700 a couple of years ago to 2,250 on the latest figures. We have a plan to reduce that number further. We must ensure that everybody who comes out of in-patient facilities has the proper care plan and the community support to ensure that that is a sustained change in circumstance. It is something on which we are working incredibly hard. In fact, I was having a meeting with the Minister for Care only yesterday on precisely this issue, and I am very happy to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full briefing on what we are doing.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)]

rose—

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the Secretary of State for very kindly giving way, and I welcome the fact that he will be taking forward into legislation the recommendations of the independent review into the Mental Health Act. Will that be accompanied by Sir Simon Wessely’s recommendation that the sector needs £800 million of capital infrastructure to bring mental health settings up to the same standards as those of physical healthcare?

[Matt Hancock]

I want to pay tribute to the work that Sir Simon has done in bringing this matter forward. We are absolutely looking at the capital requirements, as well as the requirements for revenue funding, which have gone up in this area. We will be publishing a White Paper by the end of the year, and then we will bring forward the new mental health Bill as a draft Bill. Mental health is a priority for the Government. These reforms need to be done with care, and I hope again with consensus. The timetable for reform is that requested by the mental health community, but Members should make no mistake, we will act. I am very happy to talk to the hon. Lady with more details.

I do not think that I have ever taken more interventions in a speech, Mr Speaker, and I am now happily coming to my conclusion. This Queen’s Speech has health and social care at its heart. The reforms will help to improve the delivery of the NHS and to bring new cutting-edge treatments to work. They will make sure that our world-beating life sciences are supported; that we have a safer NHS, where we always seek to learn and to improve; that we have a permanent solution for social care, not just a short-term fix and dignity; and that we have dignity and support for everyone receiving mental health care as we put record funding into mental health services. All that will be properly funded, because we have turned the economy round—without a strong economy, we just cannot properly fund the NHS. Today’s debate has shown why we Conservatives are now regarded as the true party of the NHS and we will make sure that it is always there for generations to come up.

Debate interrupted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, it is. I have been briefed on the example that Bromley is setting, which has been brought to my attention by its brilliant local representative, my hon. Friend. Social prescribing systems such as this one are on the rise, because the evidence shows that social prescribing helps to keep people healthy and out of hospital.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

A fortnight ago, during his statement to the House on prevention and how the Government intend to keep our nation well, the Secretary of State told me that he would look at my Health Impacts (Public Sector Duty) Bill, which had its Second Reading on Friday. Unfortunately, on Friday, the Government objected to my Bill. Which elements of the Bill did the Secretary of State object to?

[Matt Hancock]

I know the hon. Lady has done an awful lot of work on this, and I respect that work. We did look at the Bill, but we thought it was, unfortunately, technically deficient. I know she cares a lot about this, however, as do I, and I want to work with her to see what we can do.

Prevention of Ill Health: Government Vision

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The way that money for primary care is allocated is being looked at right now, taking that and other things into account.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

To really make a difference to keep our nation well, prevention has to be the preserve of both local and central Government. I note that the conclusion of the Secretary of State’s report says that he will be considering what a health-in-all-policies approach to policymaking could look like next year. Will he signal his support for the health-in-all-policies principle by supporting the Second Reading of my Health Impacts (Public Sector Duty) Bill on Friday 23 November?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady makes a great plea, which I will look into in some detail.

Technical and Vocational Education

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

It is certainly true that Labour is the anti-business party, but it is much more worrying that the Labour party seems to oppose our reforms to bring the world of education and the world of work closer together. We are undertaking the most radical reform of vocational education in Britain for a generation. We have swept aside thousands of qualifications that employers did not value and replaced them with clear tech awards, tech levels and the tech bacc, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned and which starts in September. We have boosted apprenticeship numbers—there are record numbers under this Government—and introduced higher-quality apprenticeships that reflect the modern economy, and strengthened the requirements for English and maths.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have raised this point before, but I think it would be useful to do so again. The Minister is currently consulting on changing the apprenticeship rules, and 400 businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-west, have responded by raising very serious concerns about the future for apprenticeships under his proposals. Why will he not address their legitimate concerns and ensure we can have those apprenticeships in the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have to ensure that the reformed apprenticeships are super simple, especially for small businesses, but representatives of 500,000 businesses wrote in support of the principle of the reforms and that is why we are going ahead with them.

The reforms are starting to pay off. Standards are starting to rise. Youth unemployment, which rose 40% in the first decade of this century under the Labour Government, is falling—it is down 10% over the past year—and is lower than it was at the election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like a number of MPs, I have taken on an apprentice, something that has been recommended by the Minister, but as a small employer this has only been made possible by the Liverpool chamber of commerce, which provides all the training, development and support for James, my apprentice. Under his proposed reforms, how does the Minister expect MPs to take on apprentices and provide the same high standard of training and support and administer training budgets? How much time does he expect us to take on this?

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady has an apprentice. I now have two apprentices and the House has an apprenticeship scheme that the Clerk has been instrumental in bringing forward. Under the new system we will make sure that small businesses and small employers, including MPs, can take on apprentices, and training providers will have a role to play just as they do now in helping with bureaucracy.

[Luciana Berger]

How much time?

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not expect it to take any more time than it does at the moment and I am sure that it will be just as valuable for the hon. Lady and for other MPs as it will be for small businesses across the land.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. She failed to mention that David Beckham was also at that launch, which was no doubt an exciting moment. I pay tribute to the Sky academy and to the work that has been put in to ensure that people going into the media and the arts have not only the skills but the mentoring and inspiration to make the best of their lives. That is exactly what is needed if we are to see more people getting the chance and the inspiration to reach their potential.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today sees the launch of Juice FM’s Knives Wreck Lives campaign in Liverpool, which aims to raise awareness among people on Merseyside of just how damaging knives can be. Will the Secretary of State welcome the campaign, and tell the House what he is doing in our schools and colleges to inform young people about the perils of knife crime?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I congratulate Medway council on its SUCCES initiative. Traineeships are being designed in a highly consultative way to support and enhance existing best practice not only from councils but from organisations such as the Prince’s Trust, which does brilliant work in this area. I am happy to look at the work that goes on in Medway and to ensure that what we do on traineeships supports it.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

How will the Minister ensure that more apprenticeships go to younger people, as we know that the figures from last year showed that 9,000 fewer under-19s had gone into apprenticeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, apprenticeships have been a huge success story and the number of 19 to 24-year-olds involved is rising sharply. We must ensure, too, that apprenticeships are rigorous and high quality, so we have taken steps to do that. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me next week, which is apprenticeships week, in celebrating apprenticeships. Every Member of this House has the opportunity to explain to everybody that apprenticeships are good for the apprentices, good for business and good for society as a whole.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Luciana Berger and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate today, and I am following a large number of Members who have spoken with great authority and understanding. I have listened with interest to the debate, but one thing seems to be missing. It is the big picture. The biggest impact of the money spent on children’s education, in terms of our ability to improve cognitive skills, is seen in the earlier years. There is now consensus not only in the academic literature but across the House that we need to target resources in that area, because that is where they have the biggest impact on child brain development. However, when we consider how the money is spent in the UK and across the world, we see that the inverse of that is happening. Excellent research has shown that the money going into post-16 education in the UK is 1.5 times the amount per head that is spent at primary level. The differential is even greater for the pre-school and under-twos provision that we have been discussing today.

We all recognise this historic anomaly, but the question is: what can we do about it in the context of the extremely tight public spending limits that are necessary, given the scale of the deficit? That is not an easy proposition. The analysis is easy, and the evidence all points the same way, but it is extremely difficult to achieve the practical and political ability to make that change, so that that money will go to children at the age at which it has the most impact.

I shall give two examples. The Government have made two proposals that will save money, because the evidence showed that the money being used did not have as much impact as it could have done elsewhere. They are politically difficult proposals. First, the Government have asked students to pay more of their tuition fees, and secondly, they are restructuring the EMA. At the moment 90% of those who receive it would have stayed in school anyway, so now the impact will be much greater. Those are both extremely politically sensitive changes, yet they are having exactly the impact that Members of all parties have called for.

In an era of rising budgets it may be easy to put more and more focus on increasing spending at the lower end of the age distribution. In an era of very tight finances, however, it is difficult to redistribute and retarget money from the older end, especially post-16, where the evidence shows that the impact on cognitive ability is the smallest, to under-fives, for whom the evidence shows it is biggest. However, this Government are doing it. Members of all parties ought to recognise how difficult it is to make that change in the context of the very tight public finances.

That supports the strength of the Government’s position, which I applaud, of keeping the early intervention grant flat in cash terms in the forthcoming period. Protecting money for early intervention, in the context of the current spending conditions, is an achievement for which the Minister ought to be applauded.

We then come to the argument about how that money is spent and where the cuts are falling. I did a bit of research and found 27 councils across the country that are managing to keep all their Sure Start centres open despite the difficult public finances. Of those, 24 are run by the Conservative party and three are Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalitions.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage cuts those councils are receiving compared with the 4.4% average cut to local authority budgets?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. My own county council, Suffolk, did not do very well in the distribution of the local authority grant, but because it is making savings in back-office costs, re-engineering how it delivers services, reducing the cost of services and being flexible in how it delivers them, it is able to keep its centres open. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point, and the crucial point is that councils ought to be making savings in the back office and re-engineering their services to protect front-line services, as Suffolk is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady, who has only just joined the debate. I have been here for two hours.

If we take out the money allocated to Liverpool schools, Ministers have decided to cut the money for children and families by 35%. In the city with the greatest need, more than a third of the budget for children and families is being shed.

We all support efficiency and back-office cost savings, but I asked the Minister in a named day question on 15 February what the average back-office costs for a Sure Start centre are. I am still waiting for a response.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am puzzled; I hope I will not be shocked. I know that Liverpool council’s total spending power is falling by 15% over two years in real terms. The hon. Lady has just claimed that spending on children’s services is falling by 35%. Is it true that Liverpool council—

[Matthew Hancock]

Is it run by the Labour party? Is it true that that council is cutting children’s services by so much more than the total overall cut?

[Luciana Berger]

The grants to children, which are not allocated to schools, are being cut by 35% in Liverpool by the Government. [Interruption.]