(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberToday’s debate is a welcome chance to talk about the challenges of our health service. The Darzi report was a stark demonstration of the state in which the health service was left by the last Government. I know that part of the game today is for our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches to say, slightly deceitfully, “Oh, the Labour MPs are supporting the delay.”, but Members across the House will know, if we are honest with ourselves, that we cannot delay something that was not going to happen.
What of our inheritance? It stretched far further than just the buildings; it included the staff and the patients in them, weakened by austerity and decimated by covid. Lord Darzi talked about £37 billion of under-investment in our hospital buildings in the 2010s. On top of that, what else did we inherit?
Does my hon. Friend share my real discomfort at the gall of the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) in suggesting that somehow this Government are making the same mistakes that the Conservative Government made, when it was in the 2010s—under a coalition Government—that the rot started, with the Liberal Democrats?
I think if the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) were to reflect on what he said, he would know that these things always go a lot deeper.
What have we inherited? We inherited 14,000 unnecessary deaths in A&E alone each year. NHS waiting lists peaked at 7.7 million. That is people waiting anxiously, needing treatment, tumours growing, their bodies getting further from being well, and every day 2,000 people were being sent to hospital who did not need to be there, because social care had been failed and forgotten by the previous Government and by the coalition Government. In my constituency, that means 20% of beds in our hospitals are taken up by people who do not need to be there.
We have work to do, and I am concerned that in this debate we will get caught up in a discussion about hospitals and will not fix the systems within them that we need to fix. That is why we have talked about three shifts. The first is from hospital to community. We have to stop people needing hospital care because they have been failed by care closer to home. That is why our revolution in GPs will make a real difference. The second is the shift from fitness to prevention. We can have the best buildings, but with less prevention they will still be full. Finally, there is the shift from analogue to digital; every week, the Health and Social Care Committee hears about people caught between systems and between computer systems.
Although I welcome this debate, we must not fetishise buildings over people. We need to think holistically about our system and deliver the decade of national renewal that the public voted for. We need to look at all of our health service, across parties and in good faith.
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Meur ras, Mr Stuart; thank you for your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am also a member of the eating disorder APPG.
As has been mentioned, recent data suggests that one in eight 17 to 19-year-olds in England have an eating disorder—a massive increase from fewer than 1% in 2017. On average, young people are now waiting for almost three and a half years to get treatment.
My relationship with anorexia began nine years ago. It is a story that I am sure resonates with many thousands of other parents the length and breadth of Britain; frankly, it is a massive part of why I became an MP. My story began when I took a phone call from a teacher at my daughter’s school. She asked me to come and collect her, as she had passed out, having not eaten breakfast or dinner.
Over the next few months and years, my daughter, whose relationship with food had already become terribly distorted, unbeknown to me, was clutched by anorexia. Its claws dug deeper and deeper into her as she slipped into a desperately poorly state. She became too unwell for school, and the pressure of her exams was like a ton of bricks on her as the anorexia gave her a cruel outlet for the control—something that sits behind so much of this—that she sought in her life.
As parents, our most solemn undertaking is to protect and nurture our children. Against this terrible illness, I was utterly useless. As my daughter’s illness took hold, I became more and more angry: first with her, then with others, and then with the system. It was only years later that I had to have it explained to me that that anger was actually driven by fear. I was impotent to support my daughter. Worse still, I was incapable of finding anyone else who could provide her with the care that she so desperately needed.
Here is the killer blow. The only way she could qualify for lifesaving support was if she became critically ill—so ill that she was staring death in the face. Imagine sitting at the kitchen table for hours, watching your emaciated child looking terrified at a small plate of food in front of her and hoping that she does not eat it, so she becomes so ill that she qualifies for the support that she needs. Those truly shameful thoughts are etched on my conscience and visit me every single day. They have left an indelible stain on my soul. For having those terrible thoughts, to my daughter, wherever she is, if she sees this speech, I want to say, “I’m sorry, my lamb.”
I congratulate the hon. Member on being so brave in talking about his own experience. I, too, have a daughter who suffered from an eating disorder; she was not quite as ill as he describes his daughter being, but I am still visited by those hours—though they were many years ago—when I was gripped by fear and anxiety. It is only by sharing these stories that we can ultimately bring all this to light, so again I thank him for being brave enough to share that.
I thank the hon. Member. How could a system be so warped as to make a parent feel that way about their own child—the thing they love most, more than anything else in the world? Measuring the criticality of eating disorders through BMI is a medieval evaluation, hopelessly inadequate to the needs of the sufferer. Proper psychological assessments must be undertaken at the earliest identification of a problem, with a package of appropriate measures applied thereafter, dependent on the severity of the case.
My daughter spent two periods of six months in hospital. She recovered her health and is today working in the NHS in mental health services as a senior assistant psychologist, using her own painful experience to offer others the care and support she never had. Under-investment has left mental health services stretched beyond capacity, and young people like my daughter become desperately unwell while sitting on waiting lists, with the cost of their recovery, both emotionally and financially, spiralling by the day.
I know the Department of Health is taking the issue incredibly seriously, but we must prioritise a rapid overhaul of the system to offer hope to young people and their families. This Government must prioritise investment into mental health and eating disorder services. Today, I ask the Minister to say to all the families going through that hellish tornado of pain, to all those angry dads, tearful mums and terrified children, “Hang in there. We will come for you. We know your pain and we will act swiftly to help you to relieve it.”
(3 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Governments make choices. I have just laid out the economic situation that we inherited, which was worse than the one Labour has inherited, and yet we prioritised NHS spending. Nobody forced Labour to give above-inflation pay increases to a number of public sector workers and enormous pay increases to train drivers, or to make a significant but unwise investment in the green investment plan.
There is not time for a continual back-and-forth in a 30-minute debate, so I will make some more progress.
When it comes to comparing the record of the NHS, the performance of the NHS under Labour in Wales, across many of the metrics that Labour Members have criticised us for, is actually worse than the record of the NHS elsewhere. That is because across England, Scotland and Wales—this is why I hope we can come to some agreement—we not only had the pandemic but face an increasing demographic challenge.
The SNP, Labour and the Conservatives, in the three areas in which we respectively have responsibility for health, are seeing considerable challenges that all of us are struggling to manage, as the Labour party will now struggle to manage them. As was the case when Labour was last in office, capital spending is often deprioritised when budgets are challenged, and decisions are made that might make sense in the short term but that also create long-term pressures.
The issue that we are debating is nothing new. Members from both sides of the House agree that our hospitals need modernisation, with 42% of the NHS estate having been built before 1985 and 14% of the estate pre-dating the NHS.
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I appreciate that he does not want this debate to be political, but so far it has been all about politics. If we want to have a debate about the state of the NHS and how we transform it, it must be a level debate.
In Cornwall, we have one general hospital, but we are very fortunate that it is in the first phase of the programme because it is a women and children’s unit, which we have a desperate need for. It was originally promised by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, more than 10 years ago, but nothing came to fruition. We have been waiting a long, long time for it.
I fully accept that government is about choices. We have had to deal with—whatever we want to say; however we want to position it—a number of different challenges since we came into government—
Order. The Clerk is frowning at me, because this is a bit long for an intervention.
Does the hon. Member agree that we now have a coherent programme—however long it is for—to implement those changes?
That remains to be seen; we will have to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility says in March about the planned public expenditure limits.
To be clear about taking interventions, I am very happy to debate things, but this is a 30-minute debate in which the primary focus is on the person who secured the debate. The Minister will get a chance to make those repeated points, so I will not let anyone else make another intervention. I was happy to let people make interventions, because I am keen for you all to champion your local hospitals, but if you are not willing to play ball with me—
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing a debate on what is an incredibly important campaign in support of the reforms to the MHRA. I would like to make clear my interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos.
I will focus on the human case for reform. I would like to share part of a speech delivered at a recent APPG meeting by Jason Farrell, a journalist who has been instrumental in communicating the campaign for some time and who powerfully put into words the experience of Marie Lyon and other victims. He said:
“In October 1970, in Billinge maternity ward in Wigan, a woman gives birth to a girl. The baby is quickly rushed out of sight and later brought back swaddled. When Marie Lyon unwraps her daughter, she discovers half her baby’s arm is missing.
Meanwhile, in Portsmouth, Shirley Gubbins gives birth. Her daughter is so damaged, medics put her in a cupboard, assuming she will be dead within minutes. Shirley’s husband demands to see his child and discovers the baby’s back is twisted, her face disfigured, and one eye is missing. When she’s eventually allowed to see her baby, Shirley reacts in exactly the same way as Marie does: ‘She’s beautiful. She’s mine.’”
As a relatively new MP, I first met Marie Lyon, campaigner-in-chief and chairwoman of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, just a few months ago at the request of a constituent. Marie has met many MPs in her years campaigning for recognition and justice for mothers and children affected by hormone pregnancy tests. I had not met many campaigners like her before, and I had certainly never met a leader with such reserves of stamina and such a profound sense of injustice.
I speak here on the shoulders of victims, families, activists, MPs, scientists and academics who have called for substantial reform of the MHRA and for the Government to acknowledge the harm done to patients and to implement the recommendations of the IMMDS. The harrowing stories of victims of this scandal after decades of fudges, obfuscation and inaction that have hindered their pursuit of justice must be heard again and again in the Chamber. The evidence is clear. The time for talk has long passed. It is time for us now to act.
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
That is exactly what is needed for urgent and emergency care. My hon. Friend draws attention to Somerset; the situation is bleak in Devon too. In Devon in 2015, 55% of adults were able to see a dentist, but that has since dropped to just 37% today.
I have had so much correspondence from my constituents on this subject, and the decline, as I see it, is a direct result of 14 years of Conservative neglect of our health services and of NHS dentistry in particular. I find it really troubling that the situation is affecting people in some of the most vulnerable categories, such as older people and children,
Children in Devon are missing out on crucial dental check-ups. Once upon a time, they used to have check-ups twice a year; now, it is not possible for children to be registered for NHS dentistry in many dental practices. It is therefore no surprise that tooth decay is now the leading cause of hospital admissions for five to nine-year-olds in the country. I talked to one primary school and was told that pupils are going to hospital in Bristol to have their teeth removed—often between four and 10 teeth at a time. The number of NHS dentists in Devon has dropped from 549 to 497, so the reality is that NHS dentistry is simply no longer available for all.
I entirely accept the points that have been made about Devon and Somerset. In Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, we have some of the most deprived areas in the country. I have met people who have chosen to access dental care privately at the expense of heating their homes or eating food. This is where we are today: we are in a dental emergency across the south-west, and in Cornwall, the situation is now critical. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot wait any longer for emergency dental care across the south-west?
The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to move NHS treatment back into primary care and away from the most critical acute care, yet it seems to me that primary care services are moving in the other direction.
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I remind the House that the Conservative Government had the last decade to reform the dental contract but failed to do so. I therefore implore the new Government to act now with two simple actions. First, they should introduce a timeline for reforming the NHS dental contracts system. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that that was their intention, but I feel that there is an element of urgency about this—especially for rural areas—that has not been addressed. Secondly, I would like it to be a mandatory requirement for ICBs to appoint dentists to their boards. There is a strong feeling among dentists that ICB boards of directors do not understand the issues they face.
Does the hon. Member think it indicative of the state of politics today that, although Members from both sides of the House are here, not a single one of the culprits—those responsible for the shameful state of dentistry across the UK, not least in my constituency—is here to listen to her very important speech?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is disappointing that those who have failed to address this issue over many years still do not seem to see it as important. Although the dental contract was introduced under a Labour Government, it was clear that, after a length of time, there was an obvious moment when it should have been reformed but was not. That is disappointing and noticeable.