Infected Blood Inquiry

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I am fully aware of the consultation that took place, but what Sir Brian Langstaff describes is the ongoing involvement of the victims in the process, by their being part of an advisory panel and continuing to advise the compensation board.

I know that David Foley was at the conference at the weekend for the organisation that represents people with hepatitis. That organisation was pleased with the discussions it had with him, but none the less and in spite of that, people who were at that conference have since made clear to me that they feel frustrated and that, ultimately, the Cabinet Office is in control of the decision-making process. My right hon. Friend may take issue with that, but he should take note of the fact that that belief is out there, and we need to deal with it.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to labour the point. All that we are hearing from the representative groups—those who make sure that they represent all those in the infected or affected communities—is that they want consultation with Government. They just want to be listened to and properly consulted as all these regulations are designed going forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not understand the Minister’s sensitivity around all this. He has to be aware—I am pretty certain that he is—that there is this sensitivity when it comes to the community.

[Clive Efford]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to make my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General aware of the strength of feeling out there that needs to be addressed. We will not satisfy people about the process unless we address those concerns.

One thing driving that concern is that the current process is not what was described in Sir Brian’s report, and it is not what was expected at the time he published his reports. The victims and their representatives feel excluded. On top of that, they feel enfeebled because of the lack of resources for advice and advocacy. There is further to go, if the victims are to have complete faith in the process. There is frustration that the people they have been battling against have been put in charge of the reparations. Surely my right hon. Friend can see their concerns. The death rate is now one every three days, and the increase in the rate is largely due to the fact that those with hepatitis have been suffering with long-term chronic liver disease. The Red Book for the Budget sets out that compensation will be paid over five years. At that rate, another 600 people will die without getting justice. The Treasury must not become another reason for justice for victims being delayed. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will not be the case?

I am aware that Sir Brian Langstaff has written to my right hon. Friend about the rule on siblings of 18 years of age at the time the sibling passed away. Will he explain to the House—or write to me on this—exactly where that ruling came from? It does not seem to appear in any of the recommendations or in Sir Brian’s report.

I have spoken before about the £15,000 offered to former pupils of Treloar school, which they consider derisory. It is another example of what happens when victims are excluded from the process.

I also draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is an excoriating criticism of the Cabinet Office. It exposes what it describes as a lack of clear and understandable information in the explanatory memorandum and a lack of preparedness for delivering the compensation scheme. The Committee doubts that the Cabinet Office will be able to pay compensation by the end of the year. Is he confident that the Committee is wrong and that payments will be made by the end of the year?

Lastly, large amounts of money were made by pharmaceutical companies and others while victims were being exploited and, in some cases, even being experimented on. That did not come about because of mistakes; they were deliberate actions, which in many instances were criminal. The British taxpayer must not pay the full cost alone. Those who made money from this appalling scandal should be required to make a significant contribution. In spite of what my right hon. Friend may consider a negative speech, I welcome the progress that we have made, but there is much further to go to deliver the justice that Sir Brian Langstaff set out in his report.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is always difficult to follow somebody who has said almost exactly what I had intended to say in my speech. What I will try to do for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is rephrase it in a way that will hopefully be helpful and useful to the House. I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who raised a number of really important issues about which those on the Government Front Bench should listen carefully.

I noticed the Paymaster General’s reaction to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst; he has got to relax a little. We are trying to help and to be the voice of the community, who are telling us these things. They want to be engaged and properly consulted with. They want to be part of the process. That is what they are telling the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and that is what we are hearing from all the representative groups right across the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Paymaster General should just take on board some of the things that we are trying to put forward about the feelings and opinions of a lot of the community and what they are saying to us directly as a consequence of what is happening.

I congratulate the Government on honouring their commitment to have a debate. It is a pity that we did not get the full day, but one thing I have noticed is that it is getting a bit quieter in the Chamber when we have these debates and statements. I hope that there will not be fatigue when it comes to discussing important issues relating to the infected blood scandal, as we as a House will need a detailed approach to the ongoing compensation schemes.

I really hope that we will not get to a stage where the Government see this as “job done” and another box to be ticked, thinking, “There we go: infected blood is dealt with and we can now move on.” It is incumbent on all of us who were involved in the campaign to ensure that we continue to press the Government, ensuring that we talk up on behalf of our constituents and those impacted and affected.

I really hope that we start to see some newer Labour Members, in particular, taking a bigger interest—we used to have really involved, detailed debates where people turned up and played their part—as I am sure that many of them represent people who are impacted and affected. It would be good to see a few of them turn up.

[John Glen]

I think it is it is a good sign that there are fewer Members of Parliament in the Chamber, because it shows that there has been meaningful progress. I do not see tetchiness from the Minister; what I see is somebody who has listened carefully to the representations of the community and acted on them. I accept and acknowledge that there are outstanding matters, but actually, when infrastructure has been set up—in some cases for 20 years—to campaign, it can be quite difficult to adjust to delivery mode.

[Pete Wishart]

There is no one in the House more experienced than the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to what he did in government and how he brought this issue forward. He is right; we must be a bit careful, but all of us involved are just trying to take the debate forward. He is possibly right that there may be satisfaction that things have moved on and we are at a different stage in the campaign, but it is still important that we continue to ask questions of Government. That is what we are all trying to do in this debate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will, so long as the hon. Member does not poke me in the back, as he did the other evening.

[Jim Shannon]

My constituent has mentioned an outstanding issue that must be addressed. Current proposals only include siblings who were under the age 18 and lived in the same household as an infected person for at least two years after the onset of the infection. The requirement for siblings to have lived in the same house should be removed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the loss and suffering of a sibling who did not live in the same household for two years is no less than that of a sibling who did?

[Pete Wishart]

I do, and I am happy that my speech has provided the hon. Gentleman with another opportunity to make one of his interventions, as he does in practically every debate that he attends. He makes a good point, which the House has now heard.

I want to reinforce the point about IBCA’s arm’s length process. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is right that it is abundantly clear, in both the interim and the full report, that there is a general expectation that IBCA will be truly at arm’s length, divorced and separate from the Government. We cannot get into the head of Sir Brian Langstaff when he designed the scheme, but I think that he expected there to be a proper arm’s length body that would be responsible to Parliament, not Government. What we have is the other way around, and that will probably be okay, but for extra security, those of us who are interested would like to make sure that it is properly independent, according to Sir Brian Langstaff’s original intention.

As long as there is a sense that this is a Government-influenced body, there will be continuing suspicions—from a community that has been let down so badly for decades by decision makers and Government—that this is the same old approach that we have seen in the past. I ask the Minister to find a way to ensure that we get that proper judge-led, arm’s length body that is responsible to us as the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, and not just exclusively to Government. I have no issue with all the tributes that people have made to David Foley and all the other people involved, because they have been fantastic, but we are already beginning to see Cabinet Office-based appointments coming through for IBCA. Again, we are not really seeing consultation with those at the sharp end of all this. We need some more of that.

Sir Brian Langstaff said that two expert panels—one representing the legal parts of the issues, and the other the health parts—would work almost simultaneously and in concert with each other, to feed back to the chair of the board. It would be good to see that starting to emerge. He also said—not as clearly, but it was intended—that an expert panel would comprise those representing the community, both the infected and the affected. They would have a similar role to feed into the chair of IBCA. I hope that some of that will happen.

There is widespread support for what this Government have done, and £11.8 billion is a significant sum that everyone is confident will go most of the way towards meeting the compensation expectations, but there are issues. Members have touched on some of them. I will rattle through them—I do not want to detain the House and I have raised them before—but I just want to make sure that we do touch on them.

The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is absolutely right that the £15,000 for those caught up in unethical research is far too low. This is coming back to all of us again, so I really hope we are able to revisit that. Then there are those who were treated with interferon as a matter of course. They have not been properly and fully included in the compensation scheme, so again I hope the Government are able to look at that. There is concern that hepatitis C payment bandings do not match and reflect the suffering caused. That is what I have been hearing from constituents involved in the campaign, so I hope the Government will be able to look at that.

There is the issue about bereaved parents and children, who will receive very low compensation payments if they are not the beneficiary of the estate of bereaved family members. I think that could be addressed. No compensation has been paid to siblings for their loss and suffering if they were over 18. Compensation for lack of earnings should consider future career progression that was prevented from occurring, rather than simply existing careers that were cut short. Lastly on my list, which is not long but is substantial, is the fact that the need for a date of infection is causing a great deal of anxiety and confusion among the community.

I believe that most of those issues could be properly addressed with the full involvement of community representatives if they have full and open access to Government Ministers and are able to play their part in designing any future schemes. The community should be involved to provide valuable information and advice on the most pressing issues that need to be addressed.

One issue that I want to turn to in the bulk of my remarks is the part of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that has probably received the least attention thus far: the “why” of all this. Why did this happen? Why were we misled for such a long time? We have had useful discussions about compensation and it is great to see that progress, but unless we explore and examine the reasons why it happened, we will not learn all that much as we go forward. The duty of candour Bill, which I will come on to, is a useful, positive and helpful development, but unless we have a proper examination of what went so badly wrong, then I am not entirely sure we will learn the full lessons of what happened over the past couple of decades.

The inquiry uncovered shocking revelations about the Government’s handling of the issue, including failures to provide full information to those affected by contaminated blood and the delay in acknowledging the extent of the problem. Sir Brian’s inquiry found that both Ministers and civil servants adopted lines to take, or strategies to avoid providing full and candid responses to the crisis. That lack of openness contributed to the suffering of those impacted, leaving many victims and their families feeling unheard and ignored for decades. Those of us in the House in the noughties who were raising these concerns and issues on behalf of constituents who presented in our surgeries remember being dismissed by “nothing-to-see-here” letters from successive Health Ministers. I would not say we were fobbed off exactly, but we were certainly told that there was nothing we should really be concerned about. With all the serious issues that were raised, there was a real sense that none of it was being taken seriously.

Sir Brian Langstaff recommended that Ministers and senior civil servants should be legally required to provide candour and completeness in their responses to public concerns. That brings us to the duty of candour Bill promised by the Government. I think all of us involved in this campaign were delighted to see it featured in the King’s Speech. We look forward to the Government introducing it. Most of the Bill is predicated on the response to Hillsborough. Key lessons have been taken from the infected blood scandal, and from other scandals such as the Horizon Post Office scandal. All of us who have been involved in these campaigns will look forward to our opportunity to debate and design the Bill.

A statutory duty of candour for all public servants, including civil servants and Ministers, would hold public officials accountable for their actions and require them to be transparent in their dealings with the public. Such a law would compel civil servants and Ministers to act with integrity and fully disclose all relevant information, even when it might be uncomfortable or damaging to the Government’s reputation.

In the course of the Langstaff inquiry, Andy Burnham pointed out that during the tainted blood scandal and even earlier, in various materials, the Government had frequently employed the phrase

“no wrongful practices were employed”.

In our debates on this issue, I often refer to Andy Burnham’s evidence to the inquiry, because it was particularly compelling and very helpful. I probably received more letters from him when he was Health Secretary than I did from any other Health Secretary. He talked about the letters that he used to send to Members of Parliament, and expressed his concern about the inaccurate lines provided by departmental officials. He believed that those lines perpetuated false narratives that failed to address the needs of those whose lives had been so devastatingly affected. He emphasised that the Government’s response to the infected blood issue was driven primarily by a fear of financial exposure, and he believed that explained the comprehensive failure to address the concerns of the victims over five decades.

I have called for a further investigation or inquiry into why this was allowed to happen in a major Department of State, given that it clearly led to many of the difficulties that we are now addressing through various compensation schemes. Much of the debate has touched on the Langstaff inquiry, but a separate look at what went wrong would be useful and cathartic for the Government, and would help them to shape their duty of candour Bill. I am not here to criticise them, although it sometimes sounds as though I am; I think that they have made a good start with all this, and we are all grateful for the £11.8 billion for the compensation schemes.

I became involved with this issue when a couple of my constituents were caught up in it. I remember those early days when we did not know what was going on, and the letters from the Department of Health made the situation all the more confusing. Over the decades, I have come to know members of the community. Some have come down to the House of Commons, told their story, and asked us to question Ministers. I pay tribute to Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, which have made excellent representations on their behalf. The fact that we are discussing the issue now and have been able to see a clear way forward is largely due to the case that they put, and the fact that they were able to confront Members of Parliament, the Government and Ministers, and we should give them due credit for what they have done to bring us here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I should clarify for my hon. Friend that IBCA is operationally independent—that is important —but it is absolutely right that Members of this House are able to scrutinise its operations, its working and, indeed, its use of public money. We are talking about a great deal of public money, and IBCA has to be democratically accountable to this House, albeit operationally independent of Government Ministers in its day-to-day business.

[Pete Wishart]

This is a really important point—both myself and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have now raised it with the Minister. He has rightly identified the experiences of so many people caught up in this crisis, and the fact that they do not trust the Government or Government institutions. Would it not be more of a comfort to them to know that IBCA is like the National Audit Office: accountable to Parliament, rather than to Government?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why IBCA is operationally independent—that is the crucial thing here. It does not have the fingerprints of Ministers all over it, because that is where the distrust comes from. It operates independently, but as a public body it is accountable to this House for how it spends that money and how it operates as an organisation. While IBCA is operationally independent to ensure a separation between Executive Ministers and the functioning of that body, it is accountable to this House. I think that is absolutely the right balance.

Income Tax (Charge)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot tax your way to growth and you cannot invest in public services without that growth. If the predictions we are seeing about growth are borne out, there is a real risk to our public services’ sustainability in future.

The Chancellor said that the funding would help to deliver 40,000 more NHS appointments a week, but again we see no reference to specific actions by which that will be achieved. The Government seem not to know the difference between a target and a plan, and simply restating their ambition while throwing money at the challenge will not be enough to deliver on that commitment.

As I have said, elements of the Budget relating to the Department of Health and Social Care were welcome, one of them being the Secretary of State’s one-nil win over the Chief Secretary in respect of funding. An additional £2 billion to drive productivity is important. I fear that it is a slimmed-down version of the £3.4 billion NHS productivity plans that we announced and funded, but I will study it closely, and, similarly, the Secretary of State’s plan for mental health is deserving of serious study. On both sides of this Chamber, we recognise the importance in mental health investment of not only parity of esteem but parity of services, and it is therefore right for us to scrutinise very carefully how the right hon. Gentleman intends to build further on the success that we had in driving that agenda forward.

Let me now turn to the subject of capital investment, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It concerns me that, as far as I am aware, the Secretary of State has still not told us exactly when his review of the new hospital programme will report and set out the future for each and every one of the hospitals that he committed himself to delivering during the election campaign—the programme to which the previous Chancellor had committed funding, building on the original £3.7 billion allocated in 2019. The question for the Government, and the question for the Chief Secretary to answer when he winds up the debate, is: “When will that review report, and when will each and every one of those colleagues and communities who are looking forward to a new hospital know whether it will be delivered in line with the Secretary of State’s pledge, or whether the programme will be cut?”

Nearly a week after the Budget, Members will be familiar with the verdict of the Office for Budget Responsibility: namely, that the £25 billion assault on businesses risks lower wages, lower living standards and lower growth. And let us not forget what this tax hike will mean for those providing essential services across primary, secondary and social care—the general practices, care homes, adult social care providers, community pharmacists on our high streets, hospices and charities such as Marie Curie and Macmillan which provide additional care for patients alongside the NHS.

I was deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) to state clearly that all those groups would be exempt and would not be hit by this hike, and I hope that when the Chief Secretary winds up the debate he will be able to give that reassurance. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the extra costs of the employer’s national insurance hike could force GP surgeries to make redundancies or close altogether, and the Independent Pharmacies Association has warned that community pharmacies will have to find an extra £12,000 a year, on average, to pay for the hike.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I was waiting for the Health Secretary to turn to devolution issues, but he never quite did. We have a particular issue in Scotland: up to £500 million of extra costs will be forced on to the NHS there because of that national insurance hike. We have heard no commitment from the Secretary of State that he will meet those costs in full, and we look forward to hearing such a commitment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will share my concern about what this is doing to devolved services across the United Kingdom.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the ill-thought-out consequences of this hike for hospices and general practices, both in Scotland and elsewhere. I would dearly love to be able to respond to his question. Sadly, however, I am on this the side of the House and not the other side, but I am sure that the Chief Secretary will attempt to do so.

The Nuffield Trust has said that without additional financial support, the tax raid is likely to force social care providers to pass higher costs on to people who pay for their own care, or potentially collapse financially. Charities are not exempt either. As a result of the increases in the national living wage and employer’s national insurance contributions, one of the UK’s largest social care charities says it is facing an unfunded increased wage bill of £12 million a year, and Marie Curie has warned that the rises in employer’s NI contributions will only serve to put the services that it delivers on behalf of the NHS under further pressure. Those charities will be looking to the Chief Secretary to say what succour he can offer them in the form of an assurance that they will not be hit.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Glasgow has the shortest life expectancy in Scotland and in western Europe. The people of my city, who bring me so much joy, live shorter and less healthy lives than those anywhere else in the UK. Far too many die too soon. They do not get the happiness that the autumn of life brings: time with grandchildren, time with friends and time volunteering at a local church or a local mosque.

My constituency has some of the highest levels of poverty in the United Kingdom. Poverty is one the principal causes of ill health and early death. Health is the topic of today’s debate. Many of my constituents cannot afford to pay for the essentials and live in shocking housing conditions. They live every day petrified of what tomorrow will bring. This Budget confronts poverty. It increases the national living wage, giving a pay rise to the lowest paid in my constituency, and gives pensioners more than £400 this year under the triple lock and more than £1,700 over the course of the Parliament. This Budget makes a choice—it targets our scare public resources at the poorest—and I support it.

My constituents rely on the Scottish NHS, but the Scottish NHS is in crisis. Almost one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list.

[Pete Wishart]

Look at what they have done in Wales.

[John Grady]

I am discussing Scotland. This is a serious topic about my constituents’ health. The waste by the Scottish Government—hundreds of millions returned to the EU unspent and hundreds of millions wasted on ferries—could have been diverted to the hospitals in Glasgow, to put beds in the Royal Infirmary, where they are needed.

The SNP is never to blame. The 62-day cancer treatment standard has not been met for over a decade, despite cancer being one of Scotland’s biggest killers. I have met countless pensioners who have been forced to pay thousands of pounds to go private for their hip replacements and knee operations, because the Scottish NHS waiting lists are so long. This Budget means £1.5 billion this year for the Scottish Government to spend on the NHS, and an additional £3.4 billion next year.

Our Budget puts the people of Scotland first and enables the SNP to fix the mess it has made of our health service. With its record increase in Scottish funding, this Budget demonstrates our commitment to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a long time since I have had the pleasure of speaking in a Budget debate. Usually there is a bit more competition for the opportunity to speak, but given the much-diminished numbers present, I got this chance today.

Having been more of an observer in the past few years, I have noticed one aspect of the Budget: the form, the tempo and the rhythm that seem to be part of every single Budget debate. It always starts with a high, fevered crescendo of excitement. The Government reel off all the staccato of freebies and giveaways. Cheers come from the Back Benches, Order Papers are waved, and the nation feels bamboozled by this apparent avalanche of largesse. Then, of course, the first cracks appear—a negative forecast from the OBR here, bad news on the gilt markets there. Beyond that, it all starts to fall apart. Once the public realise what the Budget means to them and get over the intoxication, the hangover starts and the first opinion polls start to come out. There was one in Scotland at the weekend, and it showed a calamitous decline in Labour’s fortunes, just as the party was measuring up the curtains for Bute House. It is not so straightforward for Labour any more.

I want to do something different and actually praise the Labour Government. I want to thank them and say, “Well done for getting that funding for infected blood. That’s great!” I also thank them for the extra funding that Scotland will get—it would be churlish not to do so. It is what we asked for, and I am really glad that they have started to listen to us. I just wish they would do a little bit more of that.

However, there are issues with all of this. One of the main issues is the change in employer’s national insurance contributions, which has caused a real problem for some of our colleagues in Scotland, because we do not know what we will get as a block grant. Will we be fully funded for the national insurance contributions in our health and policing budgets? We need to have clarity, and the money has to be in addition to the block grant funding, not in place of it. I would like clarity from the Minister on that issue.

There is one local issue that I want to raise: the levelling-up funding for Perth. Levelling-up funding was pork barrel politics at its most gratuitous, and we were the only city local authority that did not get one penny from the Conservative Government. We finally got a paltry £5 million, and we were so excited about that. We had three shiny projects in Perth city centre that we were going to develop. Then, of course, the Budget came along. After we secured practically nothing from the Conservatives, a Labour Government are taking the money away from us. I want to hear the Government say that they will give Perth what it is due.

Budgets are like fireworks on bonfire night: they go up like a rocket, with lots of noise and colour, then they come down like a damp squib. Today, the Government’s Budget feels very much like that damp squib.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the ombudsman reported to this House before the election, making a number of recommendations, but did not conclude the basis on which a compensation scheme might apply. Further work is therefore required, which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at, but I would point him to the fact that this is a Government who honour their promises. If we look at the infected blood scandal or the Post Office Horizon scandal—an issue that I worked on for many years—we were told by the Conservatives that they were doing the right thing by compensating the victims, but they did not put £1 aside to pay for it.

From education to our justice system, we have inherited public services that are on life support, but I do not need to tell working people that. Sadly, they know it all too well, because the last Government lost control of both our public finances and our public services. This Budget and this Government will get both back under control. I will now outline how we should do that, by focusing on one simple word: reform. Reform is urgent, because we cannot simply spend our way to better public services.

This is a Government for working people, and we are determined that they will get the best possible public services for the best possible price, but public service reform is not just about policy or IT systems or procurement, as important as they are; it is about people. It is about the people at the end of each of our decisions: the patient in the hands of the NHS with worry and hope in their heart; the pupil in a school, college or university with aspirations that should be met; and the pensioner who wants to feel safe walking to the shops on their high street. Behind each of those people is a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, a police officer or a civil servant.

These are public servants who have chosen to work in public service to serve the public, as this Government do. They are public servants and people who today feel frustrated by not being able to access public services and not being able to deliver them. These are public services that, when performing well, deliver a well-functioning state and help keep workers educated, well and able to help grow our economy and protect our country. It is for these people that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed we will deliver a new approach to public services that is responsible, that looks to the future and that balances investment to secure public services for the long term with reforms to drive up the quality of those services today, and with reform as a condition for investment. From the Attlee Government founding the NHS to the Blair Government reforming poorly performing state schools, reform is in Labour’s DNA.

I now turn to some of the points made by right hon. and hon. Members today, and I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), on delivering their maiden speeches.

There were many speeches today, so colleagues will have to accept my apologies for not being able to address all 80 contributions individually. However, I join my Labour colleagues in celebrating this Budget, because building an NHS that is fit for the future is one of this Government’s five missions. That is why we have invested over £22 billion, the highest real-terms rate of growth since 2010 outside of the covid response.

I have also heard the voices of hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Scotland, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who encouraged me so dearly to listen to his speech but has not returned to the House for my summing up. Under this Labour Government, the largest real-terms funding increase since devolution began has been delivered for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This Labour Government are delivering from Westminster for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we will work in partnership with the devolved Governments to deliver the change for which people voted, and which we have now given the devolved Governments the money to deliver.

[Pete Wishart]

We thank the Minister for that, but will he reassure the Scottish Government right now that their £500 million of national insurance contributions for public sector employees will be given back in full compensation to the Scottish Government, rather than being put into the block grant?

[Darren Jones]

It is the greatest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began. If the devolved Government wish to take responsibility for devolved matters, they should do so. If they do not wish to do so, Labour will happily take over at the next election to deliver better services for the people of Scotland.

Many Members have asked me to comment on the new hospitals programme. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has confirmed, this Government are committed to delivering a realistic and deliverable plan, and we will deliver the outcomes of the review to the House in due course.

Many Members have also asked me about the difficult decision to increase employer national insurance contributions, in the context of Labour honouring its promise to working people not to increase employee national insurance contributions or income tax in their payslips. It is right that the Government are not legislating to exempt non-public sector organisations from these changes but, as the Secretary of State said, we pay for these services and it will be reflected in their settlements. To answer the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether now or in the spring at the conclusion of the spending review, those departmental settlements will be published in the normal way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I will; it would be a pleasure.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

My constituent Air Marshal Dr David Walker, an inspirational leader and academic, sadly died of glioblastoma in June. When diagnosed, he and his wife Catherine were shocked to learn of the woefully low funding for brain and other less survivable cancers and established the charity the Right to Hope with Cancer. Will the Minister show the courage and leadership so epitomised by the life of Air Marshal Walker, and properly resource and fund less survivable cancers, so that everyone living with cancer has some sort of hope?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My 23-year-old constituent Laura Nuttall, from Barrowford, died in May, five years after being diagnosed with a glioblastoma, having been given just a year to live. Before her diagnosis, Laura did work experience in my parliamentary and constituency offices. She was one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. As I get up to speed in my new ministerial role, he can rest assured that I will make as much progress as possible in this area. It is a personal priority to me.

Social Distancing: 2 Metre Rule

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses not only in his constituency but across his great city. I hear exactly what he says, and we have been clear that once the review has reported and the Prime Minister has had the opportunity to consider it, we expect the conclusions to be made public.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). We are all really rooting for her today.

It seems that one of the most obvious outcomes in politics is that the review will conclude that 2 meters will become 1 metre and the Government’s cavalier approach to easing the lockdown will continue. Thank goodness that we in Scotland have a “caution first” Scottish Government. Having listened to some Government Back Benchers today, one would almost believe that the health crisis is over and the issue is simply the reopening of the economy. Is the Minister prepared to stand up to them and tell them directly that there will be no reopening until the risks are overcome?

[Edward Argar]

I would not prejudge what the review will say—it would be wrong to do so—but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the measured and sensible contributions from right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches is correct. We have been clear that it is important that we do what is right from a public health perspective and that we strike the appropriate balance between beating the disease and keeping people safe and, where we can do so safely, allowing businesses to start to work again.

NHS Funding Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Legislative Grand Committee & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Programme motion
Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. In my speech I will address amendment 2 and, as we are dealing with everything in one go, the other amendments and new clauses submitted in my name and the names of my right hon. Friends.

It seems that Members across the House are anxious that the Government’s laudable aims on parity of esteem for mental health services are given some legislative teeth. The NHS long-term plan rightly calls for more investment in mental health services to give mental health the same priority as physical health. That is the right approach and it is one that we support. However, as we can see by the amendments that have been tabled today, there is scepticism about how that will actually be delivered. Investment in mental health services has been seriously neglected in recent years and mental health patients are some of the people who have been most let down by the Government in the last decade.

No doubt we will hear from those on the Government Benches that mental health spending is increasing, and that the funding set out in the Bill will benefit mental health services, but the reality is that on this Government’s watch, we have seen a mental health crisis emerge. We are not getting the investment at the level required and services are simply unable to keep pace with demand. As a consequence, the number of people living with serious mental health problems is rising. Patients are unable to access vital psychological therapies within six weeks and often have to wait over 100 days for talking therapy treatments. Thousands of mental health patients continue to be sent hundreds of miles from home, because their local NHS does not have the beds or the staff to provide the care they need. These are often young people in desperate circumstances being sent away from their family and friends—their support network, as it were—and that to me sounds a long way away from parity of esteem. We know that adults in need of help with eating disorders are waiting more than three years for treatment, while hospital admissions for eating disorders increase year on year. The number of people living with serious mental health problems is continuing to rise and suicide levels are at their highest since 2002.

Even against this awful backdrop, however, it is children’s mental health services that are suffering most from the chronic lack of funding. Children’s mental health services account for just 8% of total mental health spending, and the Government’s continual failure to prioritise children’s mental health has led to services for children effectively being rationed. We know that on average, children and young people visit their GP three times before they get a referral for specialist assessment. They then have to wait more than six months for treatment to start. Suicidal children as young as 12 are having to wait more than two weeks for beds in mental health units to start treatment, despite the obvious risk to their lives.

Three out of four children with mental health conditions do not get the support they need. With over 130,000 referrals to specialist services turned down, despite children showing signs of eating disorders, self-harm or abuse, the problem has become so bad that some children and families are being told by their GPs to pretend that their mental health problem is worse than it is to make sure they get the help they need. Four hundred thousand children and young people with mental health conditions are not receiving any professional help at all—400,000. That is a scandalous figure. We know that mental health conditions in adults often begin in childhood, so it is not only an outrageous dereliction of duty to our young people; it will also end up costing the NHS and society far more in the long run.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I do not want to detain the hon. Gentleman too long, because he is making a very good speech and very important points, but I just wonder whether he has any views about the setting of this debate in the Legislative Grand Committee, the de facto English Parliament. SNP Members are excluded from voting in this debate and excluded from tabling any amendments, yet the Bill will have a fundamental impact on the health funding of Scotland through Barnett consequentials. I am interested in his views on that process, so will he say something about them? Can we have Labour support, so that this nonsense stops and we go back to one class of MP in this House where everybody can participate equally?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his frustration absolutely. I think he has a very fair point, Dame Rosie, that because of the Barnett consequentials there is a role for SNP Members—indeed, all Scottish and Welsh Members—in this debate. Clearly, that is a separate issue to the whole English votes for English laws process, but the fact is clear that on the face of the Bill there are Barnett consequentials, which mean that the devolved nations ought to have a say.

It is really no wonder, given the background I have just set out, that children are reaching a crisis point before getting the support they need, and that the number of children attending accident and emergency for their mental health in a situation of crisis is increasing year on year. That is not inevitable. With real investment, we could reverse the trend of long waits, rationed treatment and inadequate care if we allocated more of the NHS budget to mental health. As we know, mental health illnesses represent 23% of the total disease burden on the NHS, but just 11% of the NHS England budget. That is a long way off the parity of esteem that we all seek to achieve.

We know that the Government plan to put in an extra £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24, but that is not enough. The Institute for Public Policy Research has said that to achieve parity of esteem for mental health services, funding for those services needs to grow by 5.5% on average not just next year, but over the next decade. The NHS plans to spend £12.2 billion on mental health funding in 2019, but the IPPR estimates that that needs to reach 16.1 billion by 2023-24 alone.

Of course, we support the increased funding for mental health in the Bill, but we know the NHS has to live within the 3.3% uplift provided under the Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Health Foundation, NHS providers, the British Medical Association and many of the royal colleges say that health expenditure should rise across the board by 3.4% just to maintain current standards of care. By definition, there will actually be less money for funding in other areas. That means there is a risk of further raids on the mental health budget. In previous years, money allocated to mental health services, particularly children and adolescent mental health services, has been diverted back to hospitals to deal with the crisis there.

Labour would have done what was desperately needed. We would have put in an extra £1.6 billion a year immediately into mental health services, ring-fenced mental health budgets and more than doubled spending on children’s mental health. That is why we are seeking to amend the Bill to ensure mental health services do not lose out because of other financial pressures in the system. We are calling on the Government to ensure that guarantees for mental health funding are protected by ring-fencing mental health funding. We also seek to require the Secretary of State to come to the House annually to report on the amounts and proportion of funding allocated to mental health services, and on their plans to achieve parity of esteem for mental health services.

On the Labour Benches we are not convinced that mental health is a priority for this Government, despite what they say. They may want to position themselves as the party of the NHS, but as long as they continue to neglect mental health and push services deeper into crisis, they will not come near that aim. We intend to push amendment 2 to a Division, because we want to hold the Government to account. We want transparency on mental health spending and we want a clear road map from the Secretary of State on how he intends to make parity of esteem a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes an important suggestion. We considered such a thing when I was at the Department of Health and Social Care, but we decided that it would be very expensive. One of the tragedies is that many people who suffer actually make no legal claim because they are so committed to the NHS, so we have a system that gives huge amounts of money to one group of people and nothing at all to those who decide that they do not want to sue the NHS.

We need to look at tort reform, because most barristers and lawyers working in this field want the outcome of their cases to be that the NHS learns from what went wrong and does not repeat it. Unfortunately, that is not what happens with the current system. The involvement of lawyers and litigation causes a defensive culture to emerge, and we actually do the opposite. We do not learn from mistakes, and that is what we now have to grip and change.

I want to say something positive, because if we do change that we will be the first healthcare system in the world to do it properly. We are already by far the most transparent system in the world, mainly because people in this place are always asking questions about the NHS—and rightly so. Healthcare systems all over the world experience the same problem. It is difficult to talk openly about mistakes because one can make a mistake in any other walk of life and get on with one’s life, but if someone dies because of the mistake, that is an incredibly difficult thing for the individuals concerned to come to terms with. That is why we end up on this in this vicious legal circle.

On capital to revenue transfers, I was a guilty party during my time as Health Secretary. There were many capital to revenue transfers because we were running out of money, so capital budgets were raided. I fully understand why the Opposition wanted to table amendment 3, but I respectfully suggest that the trouble is that it would result not in more money going into the NHS but in more money going back to the Treasury from unspent capital amounts. The real issue of capital projects is getting through the bureaucratic processes that mean that capital budgets are actually spent.

[Pete Wishart]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the chairmanship of the Health and Social Care Committee, and I look forward to joining him on the Liaison Committee. He is a former Secretary of State, so he surely understands and appreciates that this Bill has a significant impact on Scotland, because it will affect our budgets through the Barnett consequentials. Does he think it is right that we are excluded from tabling or even voting on any amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I wonder whether, like me, my hon. Friend feels that this English Parliament is actually pretty similar to the usual Westminster Parliament that we do all our business in. Does he agree that the English votes for English laws procedure has been about the most divisive, disruptive and useless procedure ever put into this House? It makes distinctions between classes of Members of Parliament in this House, and what we are doing today is disallowing us to vote on issues that are vital to the Scottish health service. Does he agree that it is a disgrace, and that it must go?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes; I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right: I barely noticed the difference as this place magically transformed itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England). Incidentally, I do not know whether he remembers, from his time here, whether the Scottish Grand Committee was ever permitted to meet in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I fear it was not, so quite why the English Grand Committee enjoys that privilege and does not have to meet elsewhere in the building or elsewhere in England is kind of beyond me. But my hon. Friend is right that those of us from seats in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland are, for the first time, being actively excluded from the opportunity to vote on amendments.

The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) may also have been a member of the Procedure Committee back in the day; I certainly seem to remember points about the cross-border hospitals being raised. He has constituents in Wales who use hospitals in England that will be affected by this legislation, and he is unable to vote on or amend those provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. The contributions she is making demonstrate precisely why Members from Scotland should have been allowed to participate fully in this stage of the Bill and the whole process.

If the official Opposition choose to press any of their amendments this afternoon, we will seek to express our views, on behalf of our constituents, by walking through the Lobby. We will walk past the signs that say, “England only” and if the Tellers from the Government Whips team choose not to count us, that will be their decision. Of course they will also have to discount any of their own colleagues from Scotland and Wales who deliberately or accidentally end up in the Lobby; perhaps that is also an argument for getting rid of this ridiculous voting Lobby system, but I appreciate that that is for another day.

The Government could have avoided this situation, by allowing proper time for a Report stage, where Members from Scotland and elsewhere could move amendments. They could have committed the Bill upstairs to a Public Bill Committee, but they chose to convene an English Parliament here in the Chamber of the House of Commons, which is supposed to represent the whole of the UK.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend has taken over the EVEL mantle with great aplomb. I understand that the “England only” signs are already in the Lobby, and this in the UK Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland! What does that say to people from Scotland? What does it say, given that this Bill determines so much of our health spending in Scotland? Surely the days of EVEL have to come to an end. We cannot go on like this. This is the Parliament for everybody across the United Kingdom; it is not their Parliament to squat in.

[Patrick Grady]

It really does not feel like that at the moment, does it? Hear no EVEL, see no EVEL, speak no EVEL should be the mantra, because my hon. Friend is right; this might not be the last time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

In the 15 or so minutes remaining to me, I will endeavour to address all the points that have been raised. First, I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions and for the amendments that have been tabled. I particularly thank the shadow Minister for his typically reasonable tone in making his case forcefully. This Committee debate has been a wide-ranging and important one.

I will turn in detail to the amendments shortly, but, in the interests of time, I will swiftly address the requests for meetings or visits. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was right when he said that he saw me nodding. I will be very happy to meet him, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and the chief executive of his hospital trust to discuss the issues that he raised. I will also be very happy to meet the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) separately to discuss the issues that he raised.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Edward Argar]

I will give way very briefly, because the hon. Gentleman is eating into his own time.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister is in a very accommodating mood. Does he accept that this Bill has funding implications and consequences for health spending in Scotland?

[Edward Argar]

As has been very clear throughout the progression of this Bill so far, there are Barnett consequentials, which will be dealt with in the usual and appropriate manner.

I will turn to the detail of the amendments in a moment, but before I do, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) addressed the debate in Westminster Hall just before the general election. In that, I said that if her constituents wanted a strong voice in this place, they should vote for her. I am very pleased that they did exactly that. Her speech shows exactly why.

This legislation is a simple Bill of two clauses. The substantive clause—clause 1—puts a double-lock duty on the Secretary of State and Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that NHS England will receive, as a minimum, £33.9 billion extra a year by 2024, enshrining in law the NHS England revenue budget rise in line with the Government’s manifesto commitment. The Bill has deliberately been drawn narrowly to focus on that core commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Under the programme order of 27 January, I must now put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) on the Committee stage of the Bill, and on the consideration —Report—stage and the consent motion in the Legislative Grand Committee (England). I can see some puzzled faces around the Chamber, and not only among those who have newly been elected to this place, so for the sake of Members unfamiliar with our procedures in respect of Legislative Grand Committees, I will set out what is about to happen.

I will put the Question on amendment 2, which has already been proposed from the Chair. I will then call a member of the Legislative Grand Committee (England) to move amendment 3 to clause 1. When he has done so, I will put the Question on that amendment. I will then put the single Question that clause 1—or clause 1, as amended, if it has been so amended—and clause 2 stand part of the Bill. I will then call a member of the Legislative Grand Committee (England) to move new clause 4. When he has done so, I will put the Question that the new clause be added to the Bill.

[Pete Wishart]

Can you read it again?

[The Chairman]

I could, but we might get to the stage where there are no votes at all.

When the proceedings in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) on the Committee stage of the Bill are concluded, I will resume the Speaker’s Chair for the Whip to report the Bill from Committee. As the three-hour knife has now fallen, there are no amendments for consideration on Report, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly pointed out in his point of order earlier.

The House will again resolve itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) to give consent to the Bill as a whole. I will call the Minister to move the consent motion formally, and I will put the Question on the consent motion forthwith. I can see that everybody understands this a lot better now. When the proceedings in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) on the consent motion are concluded, I will resume the Speaker’s Chair and call the Minister to move the Third Reading of the Bill.

I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division in the Legislative Grand Committee, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote. All Members may vote on the Third Reading of the Bill.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. I am very sorry, but although I was listening very carefully, I did not quite catch all of that. Do you mind repeating it once again, please?

[The Chairman]

I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may not have caught all of that, but I happen to know that he is one of a handful of people in this House who does actually understand this procedure. I hope that I am one of the others, and everyone else will pick it up as we go along.

The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That amendment 2 be made.

The Committee having proceeded to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

It is not as if any hon. Member of this House is ever invisible or, indeed, inaudible, but merely, once again, following Standing Order No. 83W, which this House resolved to put into the Standing Orders of the House.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. [Interruption.] I hear the groans from my Conservative colleagues. I have to keep my record of speaking in the English Parliament—it is a record that I very much cherish and look forward to maintaining. These events are being televised and people throughout the United Kingdom, particularly those in Scotland, are observing our proceedings with a degree of mystification and bewilderment. What Scottish viewers will see is the baying, groaning and booing of Conservative Members about Scottish Members of Parliament asserting their rights to have their say on the funding of the national health service. Can you confirm that that is the case and that this House really needs to grow up, behave itself and come into the 21st century?

[The Chairman]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I would say, as Mr Speaker always says, and as every occupant of the Chair always says, that our behaviour in this Chamber should, at all times, be of a standard that makes us never ashamed to be watched by anyone on television or in any other way, regardless of the subject of our proceedings. I notice that that has engendered some slightly better behaviour—thank you.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,

That the Legislative Grand Committee (England) consents to the NHS Funding Bill, not amended in the Legislative Grand Committee (England).— (Edward Argar.)

Under the terms of the Order of the House of 27 January, I must now put the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings in the Legislative Grand Committee on the consent motion. The question is the consent motion. As many are of that opinion say “Aye”—[Hon. Members: “Aye!”]—of the contrary “No”—[Hon. Members: “No!”]. The Ayes have it—[Interruption.] We now come to a scientific matter. Members representing Scottish seats are well aware that they do not have the right to vote on this particular motion. They therefore do not have the right to shout “No” when I put the question. I can hear “Aye” from the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) knows that I am more than capable of discerning a Scottish “No” from a non-Scottish “No”—[Interruption.] Order. I am ruling that the shouting of “No” from the SNP Benches does not mean that we are going to have a Division.

Question agreed to.

End of Life Care

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate and for making so many important points about how we can roll out the very best care and make it available to all of our constituents. I am disappointed that the Minister has not told us when he will respond to the “Choice” review, because it has been a year since its publication. As we have heard, a number of reports have set out what needs to be done. This is now the time for action and for the Minister to set out when it will take place.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just concluded two days of debate on the Government’s estimates, but the estimated expenditure itself has not been debated. At 7 o’clock, we will be asked to authorise the Government’s spending plans for Departments of State—some £600 billion of public money—without there having been any debate whatsoever about them. How can that possibly be right, and what should Scottish Members of Parliament do now that we are effectively banned from voting on English-only legislation that may have a Barnett consequential? We were told that that would be considered in the estimates process, but we are not getting the chance—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Wishart, you have made your point very well time and again, and I understand why you are frustrated. As you know, it has been agreed by the House and that is what the Standing Orders say. We all know that it is not the Chair who is responsible.

Contaminated Blood

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

In my discussions with officials, there has been a great sense of urgency and professional commitment to making sure this is dealt with as quickly as possible, and we are moving quickly. As my hon. Friend will understand, the Prime Minister has form on trying to address historical injustices. This is another he intends to address in a like manner.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

There is a sense of profound disappointment among sufferers in my constituency, who see this as yet another delay and are totally frustrated with the process thus far. When the Minister talks about all these accounts and things, he sounds like a pound shop accountant rather than someone dealing with the deaths of our constituents month after month. If he has taken the £25 million off the table, will he make sure that the funds he talks about—the Caxton, MacFarlane and Skipton funds—are properly resourced in order to get our constituents through this difficult period and at least give them something to rely on?

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman speaks of speed. We had the results of the Penrose inquiry in March. In the intervening period we have had the election, and now we are announcing to Parliament the remainder of the consultation period and settlement process. That is actually very quick, considering the complexity to which he alluded. I hope that the £25 million will be spent in full on the proper things it needs to be spent on, but it will certainly be used where appropriate in the transition to the new fund from the existing five.

Health and Social Care

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate as the Front-Bench spokesperson on health for the Scottish National party.

I pay tribute to Charles Kennedy. Obviously, I did not know him in this place but I am a graduate of Glasgow University and was a contemporary of Charles, who spoke eloquently and entertainingly at our first medical year reunion.

I am honoured to have been elected by the people of Central Ayrshire to be their Member in this Parliament for the next five years. My predecessor, Brian Donohoe, was their MP for 23 years, initially for Cunninghame South and then lately for Central Ayrshire. He served on the Select Committee on Transport and even took on an additional duty as a special constable for the British Transport police, something of which he was intensely proud. Now that he is freed from the trammels and duties of being an MP, I know that he plans to develop his hobby of flying remote-controlled helicopters, which will at least keep him out from under the feet of his lovely wife Christine. Unfortunately, he does not golf, which is the other alternative. I wish them both well in his retirement.

Central Ayrshire is a coastal constituency, with beautiful sandy beaches all along its coast. In the south is Prestwick airport, Scotland’s oldest passenger airport and where Elvis stopped off on his way back from national service in Germany in 1960.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

His only British tour.

[Dr Whitford]

We now hear that he was once out drinking with Tommy Steele, so we will not go down that road.

The airport is the site of an aerospace park and, as many Members will know, is on the shortlist for consideration as a future spaceport. Unfortunately, the passenger numbers have dropped but a recent report shows the benefit we would accrue from a drop in air passenger duty. It would bring back European visitors to our lovely county and help rejuvenate our tourism industry.

Prestwick golf club was also the site of the first ever Open golf championship in 1860, but that competition is now more closely associated with its neighbour in Royal Troon, where I live. Royal Troon will host the British Open next year, and I invite all hon. Members to it, although they cannot have the spare bed in my house, I am afraid. Book early. Despite the obvious beauty and wealth in Troon, it, too, now hosts a food bank.

In the north of my constituency, Irvine is both an old town and a new town in that it was a royal burgh from 1372 that was suddenly surrounded by modern blocks in the ’60s. Regeneration of the town centre and, in particular, Harbourside is ongoing, but it contains two of the most deprived wards in my constituency. Inland, in the rolling Ayrshire countryside, there is a chain of villages, from the ancient settlement of Dreghorn, childhood home of our First Minister, through Dundonald with its fine castle and Symington with its beautiful church to the mining villages in the south of Annbank and Mossblown. Sadly, they lost their mines decades ago and are left stranded, bereft of work and poorly connected by both transport and digital services.

Tarbolton is the site where Robert Burns, our national bard, founded the Bachelors’ Club. As we might imagine from the name, this debating club was for men only, and the first toast to the Immortal Memory given at a Burns supper by a woman was just this year. We take a bit of time in Ayrshire. Now that the county of his birth is completely represented by Members on the SNP Benches, I would hope, Mr Speaker, that we might host a fine Burns supper next January, and I am sure that we will extend an invitation to you. I am sure that it has been observed by the House that there are nae wee, sleekit, cow’rin’, tim’rous beasties on these Benches.

As a doctor for well over 30 years, of course my interest is in health and the future of the NHS, which I consider to be one of Britain’s greatest achievements of the 20th century. The biggest healthcare challenge we face is developing integrated services to look after our older citizens with complex needs. Breaking up the NHS and franchising it out to rival private companies destroys collaboration and makes achieving that even harder. If the Secretary of State was still in the Chamber, I would point out to him that the report by the Commonwealth Fund to which he referred is based on data from before April 2013, when the Health and Social Care Act 2012 came into effect.

In Scotland after devolution, we went back to our roots, got rid of trusts and again became a single unified public NHS. That has allowed us to work right across our country in developing quality standards and improving safety. We have our challenges; the NHS in Scotland is not remotely perfect; we face the same challenges as the rest of the United Kingdom. But despite the quips that were made by the Secretary of State, it does come down to co-operation and not competition.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the NHS does not give you health. Health comes from having a decent start in life. Health comes from strong public health measures to tackle things like the prevention of diabetes, before we are swamped by a deluge of chronic illnesses in the future. But its most important foundation is what happens in childhood and, as we now sadly know, even what happens in pregnancy.

In my constituency, despite unemployment falling from 6% to 4%, child poverty has climbed from 20% to 25% since 2010. That is one in four of our children growing up in poverty. These are not the children of shirkers and slackers, as is often implied: 64.5% of them have a working parent. The causes are short hours, low wages and benefit cuts. I have heard the welfare state spoken about through gritted teeth in this House, but allowing young lives to fail will cost society more money in the long term—in prisons, in police, in addiction services and in long-term benefits. We need to invest in our children—but not just in them; in their families—to change their future. There is no point in talking about focusing on schools if they are sitting shivering and hungry at home at night. The first duty of any Government is the security of their citizens—not with regard to replacing weapons of mass destruction, but the real security that comes from knowing you can keep a roof over your head and food on the table.

I have served the people of Ayrshire for the last 19 years as a breast cancer surgeon. I hope I will be able to serve them further, despite missing that post, in my work here. I intend to work for them in the constituency and speak up for them in this House.

Tobacco Packaging

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

At present, we are strongly minded to introduce regulations under the affirmative procedure.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I, too, welcome the Government’s U-turn. I am sure that the Minister has been following attentively the progress made on this issue by the Scottish National party Government, who have been able to make that progress because Lynton Crosby’s remit does not extend north of the border. Will she commend the SNP Government for taking the lead and work closely with Scottish Ministers to secure the best possible outcome for everyone on these islands?

[Jane Ellison]

I repeat that the Government are proceeding along the track that they laid out in the summer. We know that the Scottish Government have expressed clear views, and we will be working closely with all the devolved Administrations.

Tobacco Packaging

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I will comment on it in a few moments. I shall skip over the last few sections of my speech, as I know that Mr Deputy Speaker wishes me to conclude.

The research done by Stirling university’s public health research consortium shows that standardised packaging is less attractive to potential consumers. That is good news because it means that if we have standardised packaging, smoking will be less attractive to young people and children. The reviewers looked at 17 further studies, so there is no lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence, and the evidence in favour of standardised packaging is very strong.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way because I am under time constraints.

The industry’s position is quite clear: it wishes to protect the intellectual property rights of its product, and it thinks that that trumps the requirements of public health. I say that public health is much more important than the rights and wrongs of the tobacco industry. Tobacco firms have spent heavily, tried to lobby Members and the Department of Health and sought to prevent progress on this issue. They have put the different aspects of the argument, but I am sure that colleagues will allude to the fact that there are ways of stopping the illicit trade and ensuring that security is maintained on the product. We can prevent the illicit trade from growing.

Let me touch on what is happening in Australia. The evidence has been very positive. One study showed that, compared with smokers who were still using branded packs when the research was carried out, standardised pack smokers were 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were poorer quality than a year ago; 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying; and 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day every week since the ban was introduced.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way, because Mr Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I understand the time constraints, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I, too, am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. I am pleased to be following the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has more than earned his spurs through his campaign.

On the last occasion when we tried to encourage the Government to act in this regard, speakers were restricted to just three minutes, and even a number of Members on the other side of the argument shared our frustration because they had so little time to put their case. Many Members in all parts of the House are still far from happy that the Government are delaying the decision to do the right thing and implement the proposals for standardised packaging—a delay that will lead to countless more young people starting to smoke.

[Pete Wishart]

No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the efforts that have been made in Scotland, and wishes to congratulate the Scottish Government on the fact that we are going to introduce standardised packaging as well as minimum pricing. We are going to do that because we take the issue of public health very seriously, and because we do not have Lynton Crosby advising us.

[Alex Cunningham]

I will congratulate any Government who are making the right decision on plain packaging.

I am aware that some Members fear that a fall in demand for tobacco will cost many of their constituents their jobs. I know that they will stand up and speak for the industry, but they will also be speaking for their constituents. I hope that the prospect of improved health, a smaller burden on the national health service and the protection of children will make them think again. I also hope that today’s debate will focus not on the cynical speculation that surrounds the drivers of tobacco policy and the influence that the tobacco lobbyists are able to exert, but on the decidedly positive effects that standardised packaging could bring, and the harm that is likely to result if the Government continue to insist on dragging their feet.

Reducing the prevalence of tobacco use is a key public health priority. None of us needs reminding of the consequences of smoking, which remains the leading cause of preventable mortality in the UK. Half the number of lifetime smokers will die from smoking-related diseases, which means that there may be 100,000 preventable deaths each year. One in five adults continues to smoke, and many people continue to take up the habit, including 573 children aged between 11 and 15 each and every day.