Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

1. What recent progress has been made on providing patients with online access to NHS services.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

It is a great honour to be here, Mr Speaker.

There is good progress in patients using online services in the NHS—about a quarter of patients are now registered to access general practitioner online services, up from about a fifth a year ago—but there is much more to be done to use technology in the NHS for the benefit of patients and clinicians alike.

[Alan Mak]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Healthcare delivered by app is increasingly popular with patients in Havant and across the country. Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his Department’s commitment to the first ever NHS patient app, and update the House on the timetable for its roll-out?

[Matt Hancock]

The roll-out of technology right across the NHS and, indeed, social care is good for patients and good for clinicians. I have seen countless examples of that in just my first two weeks in this job. I pay tribute to the Centre for Policy Studies report, which was launched by my predecessor and authored by my hon. Friend, which demonstrates how apps can be useful for making healthcare easier to access for patients. Apps are popular with patients, and I cannot wait to drive that forward.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

22. May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment? Another new technology that really matters is MRI scanners. We have had a big fundraising campaign in Bishop Auckland for ours, but the problem with such fundraising campaigns is that they are of course easier in wealthy areas than in poor areas. Will the Secretary of State pay attention to evening out this uneven distribution of resources?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course I will. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work to raise funds for the MRI scanner in Bishop Auckland, which benefits from great levels of philanthropy in some areas. The whole purpose of having a national health service is that, wherever people live in the country, they can get high-quality healthcare, free at the point of delivery, according to need. I stand by that principle, and I honour it.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. He will know that no regulator is prospectively examining the safety and effectiveness of diagnostic apps in use in the NHS. I wrote to his predecessor recently following concerns that were raised with me about Babylon’s apps, which could be missing symptoms of meningitis and heart attack, for example. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that, as these technologies are rolled out, patients have can have absolute confidence that they have been properly evaluated for safety and effectiveness? Will he set out how he will take that forward?

[Matt Hancock]

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes a really important point. There is no greater enthusiast for technology than me—as you well know, Mr Speaker—but the thing about new technology is that the rules sometimes need to be updated to take changes in technology into account. The response when there are challenges such as the one my hon. Friend raises is not to reject the technology, but the opposite: to keep improving the technology so that it gets better and better, and to make sure that the rules keep up to pace. I spoke to Simon Stevens at NHS England about this only this morning—we have had a series of conversations in the past couple of weeks since I have been in post—and he is reviewing this exact question. I am absolutely sure that we will get to the right answer.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State familiar with the “GP at hand” online service? It is a partnership between a private company and a Fulham GP surgery, and it has poached thousands of profitable patients from GPs all over London, to the alarm of the British Medical Association and of GPs generally. My clinical commissioning group is investigating it, and in the meantime CCGs have blocked Babylon’s expansion to Birmingham on safety grounds. This is creating a two-tier system for GPs, so will the Secretary of State investigate it?

[Matt Hancock]

I am acutely aware of the question that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because I am a user of the Babylon service myself—it is my GP. The important thing is to ensure that the rules are kept up to date so that we can get the benefits of the new technology, but make sure that it works in a way that ensures everybody gets high-quality primary care.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Warm congratulations to the Secretary of State.

Whether it is online consultations or more traditional, face-to-face ones, will the Secretary of State join me in thanking all the NHS staff who do fantastic work in taking care of my constituents in Chipping Barnet?

[Matt Hancock]

I certainly will. I pay tribute to the NHS workforce and the social care workforce who, every day of their working lives, give up their time to serve their community, to serve their fellow man and woman, and to ensure that we have the healthiest nation we possibly can. I love the NHS, as does everybody in the House. Almost everyone is touched by the NHS at some of the most difficult times in their lives. I pay tribute to the workforce.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I note his intention to extend online NHS services, but I hope that he will provide more detail about how he intends to guarantee patient safety, given that the Care Quality Commission reported this year that 43% of online GP and pharmacy services are currently unsafe. Will he reverse the cuts to capital funding so that safe technology can be installed? Furthermore, what steps will he take to ensure that elderly and vulnerable patients, who find it difficult to access online services, will still have the certainty of sustainable community surgeries?

[Matt Hancock]

Those are really important questions. On funding, I announced only last week £487 million to improve technology and technology services to ensure that they can be as high quality as possible. On patient safety, the key is to keep improving technology so that it gets better and better. On universal access, we must use technology in such a way that patients who want to access services through technology can do so, as that frees up resources so that more can be done for those who do not want to use technology, meaning that we preserve universal access.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on policies to tackle drug-related harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to reduce rates of childhood obesity.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

We published the second chapter of our world-leading childhood obesity plan on 25 June. It builds on the progress we made since the publication of chapter 1 in 2016, particularly on the reformulation of products that our children eat and drink most. We will continue to take an approach that is based on evidence and we are determined to act.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his post. I am sure that he was as alarmed as I was to learn that the proportion of 11-year-old children who are obese is now greater in the UK than the US. What more can we do to educate children and their parents about the benefit of a balanced diet and healthy life start?

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on this matter. It is critical that we have a cross-Government approach. The obesity plan is led by the Department of Health and Social Care, but it is a cross-Government plan. There is a whole range of actions we need to take—from education through to culture and broadcasting—to make sure we get it right.

[Dr Johnson]

One of the reasons why tackling obesity in children is so important is the fact that it has such long-term detrimental effects on health. Now that the Government have published chapter 2 of their childhood obesity strategy, will the Secretary of State outline how it will have a long-term impact on children’s health and tackle issues such as diabetes and heart disease?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that obesity, especially in children, is one of the underlying conditions that often leads to much worse long-term health conditions. Some 22% of children aged four and five in reception are overweight or obese; that number is too high and we have to act.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post, which is one of the toughest jobs in Parliament. Having worked with him on other things in the past, I am sure that his energy will come through in the Department.

I have a vested interest in the welfare of young children as we are expecting our 11th grandchild in October. Will the Secretary of State look closely at the relationship between obesity in later childhood and the diet of mothers during pregnancy? Early research shows that there is a link, so will he look at it carefully?

[Mr Speaker]

A veritable football team of Sheermans.

[Matt Hancock]

I am sure that they will grow into that, Mr Speaker.

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done, which I have watched with admiration from elsewhere. I will certainly look at the point that he raises, which is very important, and we will take a fully evidence-based approach.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new job. Today’s figures show that levels of severe obesity in children are at a record high, so will the Government speed up their childhood obesity strategy to tackle this urgent public health challenge?

[Matt Hancock]

We published chapter 2 less than a month ago. There is further work to do, because that sets out a whole series of areas in which we are going to take action, and I am already working on pushing it faster.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State has a track record of evidence-free, nanny-state policies from his time in DCMS. Can we expect more of the same in his new Department, or is he going to try out some Conservative principles, such as individual freedom, and individual and parental responsibility?

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted to see that the teamwork between my hon. Friend and I is going to continue. You might be surprised to know, Mr Speaker, that there are some things on which my hon. Friend and I agree. One is the importance of individuals taking responsibility—a critical part of public health and tackling obesity—supported by an enabling state.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is working extremely hard. I hope that he will take it in the right spirit if I say that I do not think he has yet quite secured the Shipley vote.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Sarah, who runs the Devonport Live café in Devonport, one of the poorest parts of the country, used to provide cookery classes for local young mums, but she cannot do that anymore because of a lack of funding to provide the support, facilities and food to help young mums—especially those on low incomes—to get the skills that they need to cook healthy meals for their children. What support can the Secretary of State give to young mums and to people such as Sarah who want to provide cookery lessons to support tackling childhood obesity?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Funding is available from lots of sources, not just taxpayers. Nevertheless, he will have noted that I have already started talking about the importance of getting funding out into the community, whether that is through social prescribing or wider public health efforts, to make sure that we try to tackle health problems at source and keep people out of hospital as much as possible, rather than spending all the money on sorting things out later in hospital.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of extending the provision of the HPV vaccine to boys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

17. What steps he is taking to tackle workforce shortages in the NHS.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

We now have more professionally qualified clinical staff working in the NHS: over 41,000 more since 2010, including over 14,000 more doctors and over 13,000 more nurses on our wards.

[Peter Grant]

The majority of NHS staff in Scotland will benefit from a 9% pay rise over the next three years; their equivalents in England will get a much lower increase, and we do not even know if the funding for that is secured. Does the Minister have any concerns that nurses in England may choose to relocate to Scotland where they could be paid almost £1,000 more and work for a health service whose Government actually value its work?

[Matt Hancock]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, because it is worth looking at some of the facts. Over the five years to 2017 health spending increased by 20% in England but by only 14% in Scotland. As a consequence, people are 30% more likely to wait 18 weeks for treatment in Scotland than in England, and the increase in the number of nurses and doctors in England has been higher than in Scotland. Perhaps the SNP should look at how we have been performing in the NHS in England and learn from that.

[Patrick Grady]

In that case, perhaps the Secretary of State will join the Royal College of Nursing in welcoming the action by the Scottish Government to enshrine safe staffing levels and ratios in law. Given that there are over 36,000 vacant nursing posts in the NHS in England, when will he follow the Scottish Government’s lead and bring forward legislation on safe staffing levels?

[Matt Hancock]

I have seen what has happened, and maybe the reason why the SNP has had to do that is that in England we have increased the medical workforce faster than in Scotland. When the performances improve in the Scottish NHS, we in England will start to take lessons, but until then I will concentrate on making sure we get the very best NHS right across the country.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Barely two years after the shock closure of Deer Park medical centre in Witney, the people of Witney are now deeply concerned over the future of Cogges medical centre. Please will Ministers explain what they are doing to help with recruitment and retention of GPs in rural areas, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the provision of GP services in our market towns?

[Matt Hancock]

I or the Minister of State would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Making sure that our GP services are of high quality and can respond to the health needs in the local community is absolutely mission-critical to getting prevention right, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s insights will feed into the long-term plan to guarantee the future of the NHS.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and remind him that when he tours the high streets of Britain he will find an increasing number of acupuncturists, herbal medicine practitioners, reflexologists, yoga practitioners and many more, and they all have one thing in common: none of them is available on the health service. Will he introduce a review that takes into account patient experience and practitioner experience?

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s long campaign in this area, and I very much look forward to working with him on it to ensure that we get the right evidence-based approach to using all kinds of medicines and technologies for the benefit of patients.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his post. He has said that the whole workforce of the NHS and social care should have the chance to fulfil their potential, but the care workforce has an annual turnover of 27% and a vacancy rate of 7%, and, sadly, care staff learned last week that they would not even be paid the national minimum wage for sleep-in shifts, which will potentially drive even more people away from working in social care. Will the Secretary of State demonstrate the leadership that this Government have lacked on this issue and ask the Chancellor to change the regulations on the national minimum wage for sleep-in shifts, to show care staff that they matter?

[Matt Hancock]

I value every person who works in the NHS and in social care, because everybody plays a part in improving the wellbeing and the health of the nation. I care deeply about that. On the question of sleep-in shifts, I saw the decision by the court and I have already had conversations with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on this regulation, to ensure that we can get the rules right for the future.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

10. What plans the Government have to improve support for the children of alcohol-dependent parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

18. What assessment he has made of the opportunity for artificial intelligence tools to improve the provision of healthcare.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

The Government believe that artificial intelligence and other digital technologies have the potential to transform health and care services. Our work on that includes investing over £400 million in tech transformation, which I announced last week. There is much more to do.

[Mr Dunne]

I also welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. He will bring tremendous energy and enthusiasm, particularly into the information advantage that we know is needed to transform the NHS. Does he share my view that not only will this transform patient outcomes but we can use artificial intelligence to improve patient treatments? What are his initial views of the obstacles standing in the way of rapid uptake of such technologies?

[Matt Hancock]

There are huge opportunities for AI to improve patient outcomes and to make life easier for staff. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, it is all about getting interoperable data rules and standards in place so that different systems can talk to each other in a secure, safe and innovative way.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

As the Clerk advises—his is the intellectual copyright—the hon. Gentleman has used his intelligence artificially to shoehorn his preoccupation into a question to which it has no other relation. But he has got away with it on this occasion, as it is the last day and we are all in a summer mood.

[Matt Hancock]

I welcome the power of new technologies to bring new drugs to the table. NHS England has made a very generous final offer to the manufacturer of Orkambi. Having spoken to those involved again over the past couple of days, I understand that a meeting has been offered to the company but not taken up. The company can break this impasse by accepting the very generous offer on the table.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

19. What steps his Department is taking to help protect children’s mental health from the harmful effects of social media.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

We have proposed £20 billion more funding for the NHS to guarantee its future, and I am looking forward to working with everyone in the NHS and the social care system on a long-term plan to ensure that that money is well spent. Today, we have published for the House the 2018-19 pay settlement for doctors and dentists. It represents the highest pay settlement since 2008. I regard it as a first step and look forward to a wider conversation on pay and improvements to help to make the NHS the best employer in the world.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of Baroness Cumberlege’s review of the use of mesh implants? Will he confirm whether the inquiry will liaise with the Scottish Government and whether it will hold any evidence sessions in Scotland? There are plenty of women, including some in my constituency, who had operations in England but now live in Scotland. Their voices must be heard in the inquiry.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We published information on this issue just last week. We absolutely will consult the Scottish Government and all interested stakeholders. It is a very important matter to get right.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

T5. Last year, 7.3 million people were prescribed antidepressants, including more than 70,000 children. That is an increase of more than 500% in the past 20 years. In welcoming the Secretary of State’s announcement on social prescribing, may I, as co-chair of the all-party group on mindfulness, ask him what part mindfulness and other evidence-based non-drug options will play in the strategy? Would he like to undertake a mindfulness course, and in doing so join the now more than 150 other MPs and Lords who have done so at Westminster?

[Matt Hancock]

I would be absolutely thrilled to. I have previously participated in mindfulness training. In fact, the former chairman of my local Conservative association became a mindfulness instructor, which shows how much we take it seriously locally. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on this issue. He will have seen that, even in my first two weeks in this role I have already spoken out in favour of moves towards social prescribing and the broader prescribing of less intervention and less medicinal methods, where possible, because medicines do of course have their place. The work that he has done on this issue over many years is to be applauded.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. May I take a moment to thank all the NHS and social care staff who are caring for vulnerable patients in this intense summer heat?

The new Secretary of State inherits waiting lists at 4.3 million, with more than 3,000 patients waiting more than a year for an operation. He inherits a situation in which 1,700 patient requests for hip and knee operations have been refused, and in which patients in Sussex are now expected to endure “Uncontrolled, intense, persistent pain” for six months before they receive hip or knee treatment. Does he consider such increased rationing to be fair?

[Matt Hancock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. Like him, I pay tribute to the work of NHS and social care staff in this summer heat. There are of course pressures on the NHS—I fully acknowledge that—and he raises a couple that I have already raised with NHS England. What he did not mention was that since 2010 there are 6,000 more operations every day and 1,800 more emergency admissions every day.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Since 2010, the NHS has suffered the biggest financial squeeze in its history, and the rationing that I referred to is a consequence of that squeeze.

Let me ask the Secretary of State about general practice, which he will know is facing a severe workforce crisis, with GP numbers down by 1,000 and many GPs worried about the patient safety implications of the Babylon app, which we have already discussed this morning, and its funding implications for their model of practice. When Babylon itself admits that it is still testing it out, when Hammersmith and Fulham CCG says that

“there is evidence of concern regarding the risk to patient safety”

of expanding the service, and when Birmingham and Solihull CCG questions whether Babylon can operate in an effective and safe manner, why does the Secretary of State dismiss concerns about patient safety and say that the rules simply need to be updated? Will he tell us what specific rules will be updated to allay concerns about patient safety?

[Matt Hancock]

It is almost as if it was not just my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) who popped out, but the shadow Secretary of State, who obviously was not here for the earlier discussion. Getting more resources and increased resources into primary care and to GPs in particular is absolutely mission critical to the long-term sustainability of the NHS. I am delighted that there is record GP recruitment at the moment and that the work that has been done to increase GP training is bearing fruit. On the question of new technology, as we discussed over a series of questions earlier, yes, it is important to make sure that it works well and that the rules are right but, if we turn our backs on new technology, we are turning our backs on better care.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. Despite having incredible NHS staff, our hospital in Harlow, the Princess Alexandra Hospital, is not fit for purpose in terms of its building. We desperately need a new hospital. Will he visit Princess Alexandra Hospital as Secretary of State and will he please make sure that we get the new hospital that we urgently need in the constituency of Harlow?

[Matt Hancock]

I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend has done over many years making the case for his hospital, which I have heard loud and clear. I always enjoy visiting Harlow, especially when I am his guest. I hear the case that he puts and look forward to visiting soon.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T3. Last month, a constituent contacted me about the care of her adult son who needed to be admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 2007. She was told that no beds were available anywhere in the country. The following day, a bed was identified but when, after three hours’ wait, the ambulance had not arrived, the bed was filled by another patient. Three days later, he was finally admitted to hospital. The head of mental health at Nottingham City Council told me that this is not an infrequent occurrence. Secretary of State, how is this an acceptable standard of mental healthcare?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his position, especially given his background in data and digital. What is he going to do to improve NHS data management to enable its use to develop the next generation of drugs and medical technologies to deliver better health outcomes?

[Matt Hancock]

That is a great question. Not only can technology improve in health settings; there are even greater opportunities on the research side. Getting the data structures right is mission critical, but there is so much more that we can do.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T7. To help to reduce childhood obesity, 76% of people support a ban on junk food adverts before 9 o’clock, but the consultation on this is going into the middle distance. Critics would say that the Government are dragging their feet. By when will we see this ban finally put into place?

[Matt Hancock]

We announced that we will be consulting less than a month ago. I have been closely involved in this in my previous role, as well as in this one. We will ensure that we take an evidence-based approach, but I am determined that we proceed.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State come down to East Sussex to view the Better Together partnership, which puts health and social care together?

[Matt Hancock]

How could I say no? The integration of health and social care is vital and long awaited, and there is so much to do.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

As someone who is about to have a knee operation, may I tell the Secretary of State that it is a painful thing to wait for and that people should not have to stay on waiting lists for long periods of time? My question is about hospital medical staff. Western Mail carried out a survey to look at the effect of EU nationals leaving the national health service because of Brexit. It found one health board saying that there were 1,200 more nurses than there were four years ago, and another saying that there were 1,400 fewer. No one seems to be able to tell us with absolute certainty the numbers of these staff in the health service.

[Matt Hancock]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Lady because she has long been a campaigner on health issues, and I very much take her point about knee operations. Of course, the number of EU nationals working in the NHS in England has risen by over 4,000 since the referendum. I know that there are concerns in specific areas, but I hope that we can all take reassurance from the fact that that number has continued to rise. We are determined to ensure that the NHS has the workforce that it needs.

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. I encourage him to visit the most rural part of England, up in Northumberland, to see for himself the challenges to healthcare provision due to the lack of a real rural financial formula. Will he update my constituents and the Save Rothbury Hospital campaign on how the review for that community hospital is going? That sort of low-level care is what makes the difference.

Departmental Update

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the 46th report of the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB). The report has been laid before Parliament today (Cm 9670) and a copy is available online. I am grateful to the chair and members of the DDRB for their report.

I am today announcing pay rises for doctors and dentists working across the NHS.

This is a pay rise that recognises the value and dedication of hard-working doctors and dentists, targeting pay as recommended by the DDRB, and taking into account affordability and the prioritising of patient care.

Supporting the NHS workforce to deliver excellent care is a top priority. Following this one-year pay rise, we want to open up a wider conversation on pay and improvements. This is the start of a process whereby we will seek to agree multi-year deals in return for contract reforms for consultant and GPs. We want to make the NHS the best employer in the world.

In June this year nurses were awarded a multi-year award as part of a pay and contract reform deal and it is only right that pay rises are targeted at the lowest paid workers.

Including the announcement of today’s pay award, from October 2018 a consultant who started in 2013 will have seen a 16.5% increase in their basic pay, rising to a salary of £87,665 from £75,249. Today’s pay award is worth:

Between £1,150 and £1,550 for consultants

Between £1,140 and £2,120 for specialty doctors

Between £1,600 and £2,630 for associate specialists

Between £532 and £924 for junior doctors

Around £1,052 for a salaried GP with a median taxable income of £52,600.

GPs face a significant challenge in numbers and we need to recruit large numbers over a short period, meaning any pay rise needs to be balanced against our aim for a growing number of practitioners. The 2018-19 pay award is worth £2,000 per year to a GP contractor with a median taxable income of £100,000.

The Government’s response to the DDRB’s recommendations takes account of:

Affordability in 2018-19 in the context of a spending review that budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards

The importance of prioritising patient care, and the long-term funding settlement which increases NHS funding by an average 3.4% per year from 2019-20, and which will see the NHS receive £20.5 billion a year in real terms by 2023

The three-year contract reform agreement on the Agenda for Change pay contract for 1 million non-medical staff, which delivered significant reforms as part of 3% pay investment per year, including progression pay reforms that end automatic annual increments; and

the case for contract reform for some of the DDRB’s remit groups, in particular for consultants and GPs.

The Government’s response is as follows:

Consultants

I am committing to negotiations on a multi-year agreement incorporating contract reform for consultants to begin from 2019-20.

From 1 October 2018:

A 1.5% increase to basic pay

The value of both national and local clinical excellence awards (CEAs) to be frozen

0.5% of pay bill to be targeted on the new system of performance pay to increase the amount available for performance pay awards from 2019-20. Employers will be able to choose to use the 0.25% of funding available in 2018-19 as transitional funding to manage the costs of running the required CEA round this year or to invest it additionally should they choose to do so.

Doctors and dentists in training

As agreed in the May 2016 ACAS agreement, we will discuss changes to the pay structure as part of the 2018 review of the contract, re-investing any existing funding freed up as transition costs reduce.

From 1 October 2018:

A 2% increase in basic pay and the value of the flexible pay premia

Introduction of a flexible pay premium for doctors on training programmes in histopathology of the same value as that currently provided for doctors on training programmes in emergency medicine and psychiatry.

Specialty doctors (new grade 2008) and associate specialists (closed grade)

I take note of the DDRB comments about the particular issues of morale in relation to this group that led to its pay recommendation and its observation on the need for a review of the salary structure for these grades as part of a wider review of their role, their career structure and the developmental support available to them. It is intended that this will follow the agreement of reformed arrangements for consultants.

From 1 October 2018:

Increase basic pay by 3%

General dental practitioners

From 1 April 2018 (backdated):

Increase expenses by 3%

From 1 October 2018:

Increase dental income and staff costs by 2%

General medical practitioners

I intend to ask NHS England to take a multi-year approach to the GP contract negotiations with investment in primary care linked to improvements in primary care services.

From 1 April 2018 (backdated):

Add a further 1% to the value of the GP remuneration and practice staff expenses through the GP contract, supplementing the 1% already paid from April 2018 and making a 2% uplift in all. This will enable practices to increase the pay of practice staff.

From 1 October 2018:

The recommended minimum and maximum pay scales for salaried GPs will be uplifted by 2%

The GP trainer grant and GP appraiser fees will be increased by 3% and we will apply the same approach to clinical educators’ pay; GP and dental educators.

From 1 April 2019:

The potential for up to an additional 1%, on top of the 2% already paid to be added to the baseline, to be paid from 2019-20 conditional on contract reform, through a multi-year agreement from 2019-20. This would be in addition to the funding envelope for the contract negotiation for 2019-20 onwards. This would be reflected in respect of GP remuneration, practice staff expenses and the recommended minimum and maximum pay scales for salaried GPs.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-07-24/HCWS917/

[HCWS917]

Care and Support

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not seem to recognise that in addition to what I have announced today, about three months ago the Prime Minister launched the dementia challenge. It provides resources in the NHS, through the commissioning for quality incentive, for the identification of patients with dementia and for follow-up assessments and support. It is doubling research into dementia and supporting a programme for the creation of dementia-friendly communities. As part of that dementia challenge, local authorities and the health service will work actively together to make communities far more dementia-friendly and more effective in treating dementia.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Like carers and many vulnerable people across the country, I warmly welcome the White Paper and the progress that is being made. People are keen to see a continued political consensus, which existed, and on which the Opposition were to be congratulated, until about half an hour ago. May I urge the Secretary of State to do everything he can to ensure that that consensus continues? Will he also set out a bit more about what the national minimum eligibility threshold will mean, so that people across the country know what they are entitled to?

[Mr Lansley]

On the latter point, my hon. Friend will be aware that the national eligibility threshold that we are legislating for will come into effect in 2015. We will of course make it clear before that at what level it will be set. I cannot provide that information at the moment, not least because we have reservations about the overall effectiveness of the classification of need under the fair access to care services system in the intervening period. If we can improve the eligibility framework, we will set out to do so.

I say to the right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues that I am very happy to continue to talk. I know that he did not want us to proceed on a unilateral basis from the progress report, but in truth what we published did not represent our making decisions unilaterally but instead reflected the point that we had reached. I am happy for further talks to take us beyond that point.

EU Working Time Directive (NHS)

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Leslie]

I suspect that that is a problem in hospitals in colleagues’ constituencies, and I look forward to hearing about those. It is not just politicians in the Houses of Parliament who say these things, but, crucially, clinicians on the ground, whose prime concern is looking after patients. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

One area in which the restrictions of the working time directive become apparent is in the case of a flu pandemic. The guide to the implications of the European working time directive for doctors in training makes it clear that even in a flu pandemic there are no exemptions from, and there is no flexibility about, the 48-hour rule. It is true that individuals can opt out of the directive, but they are still limited by the previous Government’s new deal to working 56 hours a week. However, there is no mechanism to compel doctors to opt out of the 48-hour working time directive.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful case. Can she explain why this is an EU issue at all, since the directive is meant to engender a single market, but the NHS is a British-only institution?

[Charlotte Leslie]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That issue was contested to some extent when the directive was first introduced, but the previous Government saw it as a health and safety issue, and therefore the NHS was included in it. There are many reasons why we need not be in this position. There are many aspects of the negotiation that are deeply regrettable, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Although this is going over old ground, it is vital to look at that to find out how to get out of our current situation and secure patient care.

NHS Future Forum

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I repeat: from the public’s point of view, we know that what they wanted was genuine accountability, in the sense that the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who care for them should be able directly to design and influence the shape of services locally to meet their needs, but they also want a patient voice and a public voice. That has not existed in the past; we will enable it to happen. They will come together at the health and wellbeing board, where they will establish a strategy for their area.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In the commendable listening exercise, was it not clear that there is now broad support for the principles of reform? Is it not better that we now take that forward, rather than being opposed to reform and opposed to the resources for the NHS, as the Opposition are?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed the message that came through to us from the NHS Future Forum and its extensive engagement with the NHS and beyond. I will not go down the path urged on us by the Opposition, which for the NHS seems to be spend less, do nothing and let the crisis happen when it will.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not profess to have any high degree of expertise. I was approached by a couple of my constituents, who hit me with what can be described only as a moral sledgehammer. They movingly recounted profound stories of their youth and their lost childhoods, which others have mentioned, and of their inability to form full relationships with loved ones. Some victims have had to keep their condition secret owing to a fear of being shunned by people who have a naive attitude towards HIV. The heartbreaking accounts are seemingly endless. Very often, sufferers get into the habit of not telling friends and even relatives, and now find it impossible to divulge the truth. Many victims were children. Some never made it to adulthood.

We fight and argue in this Chamber over a range of issues, but we would struggle to find a more poignant debate than this. The contracting of HIV through blood transfusions is one of the most profound, disturbing and dreadful episodes in 20th century health treatment. According to my calculations, on average, one person a week has died as a result of being infected with HIV. Those who survive do so only because of a cocktail of drugs that keeps them hanging on to life. That treatment has been described as being on low-dose chemotherapy for the rest of one’s life.

An additional difficulty is that victims must cope with their inability to obtain life insurance—Opposition Members have mentioned that—and they also have difficulty with travel insurance and medicals. I therefore welcome the terms of reference for the review. Surely some help can be offered to the remaining survivors. I use the term “survivor” deliberately, because that is exactly what the remaining sufferers are.

A further tragedy is the fact that some sufferers were not told of their condition even when it was known by others, leading to the infection of partners. On other occasions, it was felt unnecessary to engage with sufferers as they were not expected to live very long anyway. The treatment that is available today for HIV sufferers was not envisaged in the 1980s, so it was believed that victims had a life expectancy of about five years. Thankfully, that has not been the case in many instances. Understandably, some who were told that they had only five years to live went out and spent their financial award pretty quickly, and enjoyed life to the full without considering investing for the future. Many such victims have consequently been left financially short.

We are familiar with the root cause of the infection: blood was imported for transfusion when the UK was not self-sufficient. Perhaps we need to look further into that. Safeguards that should have been implemented in both the UK and the US were not. Indeed, it appears that the UK was slow to act on minimising the chances of haemophiliacs contracting HIV. Clearly, mistakes were made, and they must be recognised.

More important than embarking on a witch hunt is deciding where we go from here. How can we achieve insurance for sufferers and support those who need it most? Infection from tainted blood was indiscriminate. Young and old, haemophiliacs and those who underwent operations were not spared. Nobody was spared.

The situation affects not only male haemophiliacs; some female cases have been reported. It is very much a matter of regret that the issue of adequate compensation was not tackled some time ago. I suspect that the sheer sums of money are part of the reason why the cause was not picked up by the previous Government. I look to this Government to do what they can to make the situation for sufferers and their families easier.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Like me, my hon. Friend has constituents who are affected by this issue. Does he agree that although it is important to get the numbers and the money right, there is an important principle at stake too? From this debate, it would appear that the House wholeheartedly supports that principle.

[Gareth Johnson]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. A range of principles is at issue and we need to ensure that people who are affected by this tragedy are properly looked after as best the Government can achieve. We live in times of austerity, and there is a limit on what the Government can do, but it is incumbent on them to do all that they reasonably and practically can to help sufferers.

Hospital Car Parking Charges (Hereford)

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has certainly succeeded in achieving what he intended. No doubt tomorrow, when Hansard is published, his cogent point will be marked. The only disappointment is that as there are no Opposition Members here, they will not be aware of his intervention, but I am sure he will use his skills to ensure that his point is given a wider audience.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he address the point about renegotiating the PFI? Will he take up the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and try to squeeze some more value out of the PFI, and to help? He has made an eloquent case about how tight the money is.

[Mr Burns]

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention. I am grateful for his kind offer for me to try to intervene and use my good offices to facilitate a renegotiation. It is late at night, but I do not want to be churlish and I do not want to upset my hon. Friend. However, gone are the days when politicians and bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall interfere and micro-manage local health services. The Government’s vision, new policy and ethos is for a localised health service, responding to local needs, not hamstrung by interfering Ministers, including—I know that my hon. Friend will find that difficult to believe—me. I must therefore say that it is a local matter, which would have to be taken up and sorted out locally, though, from my extensive knowledge of the position, I would not, were I a betting man, put a considerable amount of money on the suggested course of action being adopted.

Having said that, during a review of car parking at the hospital, it is important that all those with an interest or a concern about the charges play a full part. Ultimately, as I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) will appreciate, it is for the NHS trust to manage its car parking to suit best the needs of its patients, the visitors and staff.

However, I hope that, given the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and my hon. Friends in the surrounding constituencies, who have played their part not only in recent months but for a considerable time in representing their constituents and trying to get a good deal for them, they will continue to open dialogue with the local trust and do all they can to pursue the matter and ensure that they get a better and fairer deal, which is mutually satisfactory to the trust, the PFI and my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Question put and agreed to.