NHS Pensions and Staffing

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Richard Fuller

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for securing the debate and for the points that he has raised. I also note the contributions of the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), who made, forcefully, the point that this is an issue that affects all parts of the United Kingdom.

Because these issues are complex and my hon. Friend rightly set them out in full in order to put them on the record, I am rather short of time, so, if I may, I will move rather quickly in responding to some of my hon. Friend’s recommendations. Let me add that I shall be happy to follow this up with other Members who have spoken if they want to raise specific constituency points.

I think that everyone present has noted the pressures on our NHS. Indeed, before taking on my new role, I spent a considerable amount of the last six months with my own GPs. I know that the issues relating to pressures on GPs are complex, including the overall questions of compensation and burnout, and my hon. Friend rightly mentioned the issue of abuse of NHS staff, which has occurred to a shameful degree over the last six months and which no member of our health service should ever have to deal with.

However, my hon. Friend focused on the issue of pension tax and the NHS, and made three specific recommendations. The first concerned the differential use of CPI figures, and he was right to raise that issue, because it is the spike in inflation that has laid bare some of the problems in the way in which calculations are made. The issue relates to the disparity between the CPI figure used for uprating the opening value of a member's benefits and the CPI figure used to assess revaluation in public service schemes. This effect is particularly notable in the NHS pension scheme, where accrued benefits are adjusted upwards each year by CPI plus 1.5%—which, to be fair, makes it one of the most generous pension schemes available.

I understand that this difference in figures will lessen the headroom that scheme members have in their annual allowance calculation. That may cause more members to exceed the annual allowance, and cause those who already routinely exceed it to exceed it by more, with the result that some may receive annual allowance tax charges. The British Medical Association has asked the Government to amend the Finance Act 2004, so that the CPI figures used in uprating the opening value and the figure used for revaluation in public service schemes are the same. However, there are some further issues that must be considered in this discussion, which my hon. Friend may not have mentioned.

First, the Government have a duty to balance support for all pension savers across the United Kingdom. The use of September CPI to measure inflation in the year before the tax year is a well-established feature that is used across the tax system. Any changes would impact all pension savers, not just NHS staff.

The current approach provides certainty to individuals at the start of the tax year about what their opening pension value will be for annual allowance purposes. I appreciate that, for those with a defined benefit pension alone, this certainty may not be seen as much of an advantage. However, for others across the country who may have some defined benefit accrual but are now saving into a far less generous defined contribution scheme, this certainty allows them to plan their finances and pension contributions for the coming year.

[Dr Whitford]

Will the Minister give way?

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Richard Fuller

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). I will speak to new clause 14 and the other amendments in my name. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for amendments 6, 7 and 8 and for an industry-led alternative—in spirit, if not necessarily in voting. I think the hon. Gentleman, as well as many of my hon. Friends, will be wanting to hear something from the Minister to show that he has been listening to concerns that have been raised across the House.

I was surprised and delighted to see on some of my amendments the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but she advised me that that was an error, so I am sorry that the potential amity between me and those on the Scottish National party Benches will have to wait for another day.

[Dr Whitford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that has saved me from having to put a disclaimer at the start of my speech, as I was rather shocked to find my name on his amendments. I just reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). It is a concern that the names of companies, as we saw in F1 racing and other things, simply promote certain types of food and drink and you cannot separate the brand from the product.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I absolutely do not agree. The reason why the Opposition Front-Bench team are probing on this is that we are not harnessing all the talents to come up with the solution. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, he does not have, or want, any objection to the objective—he just feels that there may be better ways to do it. That is what my amendments are trying to create. They would introduce a better way, working with established principles and with the industry—let us face it, it has the experts in this—rather than undermining issues to do with how the Advertising Standards Authority has managed how products are advertised and rather than bulldozing through the industry, which is the current process that the Government, or this Department anyway, are proposing.

Let us just remember that this pressure on our food and drink manufacturers is part of a wider effort of social responsibility that we are putting on them. The proposal does not sit alone, but with other things, in particular around environmental protection. The Food and Drink Federation has calculated that the cost of the UK Government’s proposed environmental health policies is at least £8 billion. That is equivalent to £160 a year on household food bills that we are asking the industry to take on.

It is estimated that the introduction of this policy will cost £833 million, but the Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the benefits are likely to be in the order of only £118 million. That is a real dead loss that we will be putting, let us face it, on food bills, primarily of those in lower income brackets. Members on all sides should take a moment to consider whether this is the right time and the right process for doing that. As the Government’s own assessment shows, the actual effect on diet for those who are targeted is estimated to be 1.7 calories a day, so it is a lot of effort and cost, but not very much impact.

New clause 14 proposes an alternative that would require the regulator to implement an alternative set of increased restrictions for online, but developed through the industry by the Committee of Advertising Practice. The new clause would legislate for a three-step filtering process drawn up by the industry to appropriately manage the targeting of online ad campaigns.

Another of my amendments would introduce brand exemptions. I take a different view from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who said that brands are intrinsically tied to their product. The truth of the matter is that Coca Cola is made by Coke and Coke Zero is made by Coke. Coke Zero is advertised with the word “Coke” on it. This issue is not necessarily covered by the legislation, but Coke is not tied to one thing. Brands are extraordinarily flexible in how they can assist progress in achieving some social means. The Minister should consider looking again at this area.

Finally, on the nutritional profile, the issue is consultation. I can see that the Secretary of State has tabled some amendments on that, and perhaps the Minister can talk about that. They do not seem to make the changes I would like to see, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say.

It is worrying that the Government have undermined the Advertising Standards Authority with their approach. One of the other things is targeted advertising. I am sure it has struck hon. Members here as it has me that the tech revolution of the dotcom era was 20 years ago, and two decades of technical expertise in understanding how adverts are targeted is being swept away or ignored by the Department of Health and Social Care, which would much rather have “nanny knows what’s best”. The truth of the matter is that, by harnessing technology, the Government could get a better outcome than this official ban. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, there are plenty of other ways to do it that would be hard for advertisers to get around.

I say to the Minister that I am trying to be helpful, as always, and, to be serious, as are the Opposition. The Government have made a slight misstep by adopting a top-down, state-driven model. I say to the Minister that the path of good intentions is littered with unintended consequences. The essence of conservatism is not to use the state to bully or, as perhaps the advisers in the various Departments say in modern parlance, to nudge. It amounts to one and the same thing. The Department’s attempt to censor products such as these is profoundly un-Conservative. Our party believes in individual responsibility and that families are the foundation of society where choices and power in society most naturally lie. Nowhere is that more important than in health matters, yet these proposals extend the role of the state and undermine parental responsibilities.

The measures make the Department of Health and Social Care look like a new outpost of cancel culture that denies free speech and has a predisposition that individuals should conform to what the state determines, rather than enabling informed free choice. It is desperately sad to see them being pushed through by a Conservative Administration. I say to my colleagues on the Back Benches: when will we wake up and realise that we need a Government who support free enterprise and individual responsibility, and who understand that the way to create growth in the economy is through enabling people to make free choices, rather than expecting the state to be the answer to every problem? With that question, I will wait to listen to what the Minister has to say.

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for clarifying that I had not voluntarily added my name to his amendment.

Whenever we talk about such subjects, we hear a lot about the nanny state. As a surgeon working in A&E in general surgery, however, the difference when seatbelts, airbags and speed limits came in was night and day in how much time I spent dealing with people in operating theatres who had been involved in car crashes. Sometimes the state has to take action to protect people’s health and wellbeing.

The Bill focuses largely on reversing some of the most egregious aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which I welcome, but these measures focus on improving public health. There is no question that obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases associated with obesity pose not just a real threat to individual health but a threat that will overwhelm national health services in future. When I looked at the original Bill, however, I was surprised that, apart from the measures around obesity, there was little in the way of public health policy to improve and promote health, and there is also little enough about care.

It is not the national health service that delivers health. I have often said that it would be more appropriate to call it the national illness service, but who would want to work somewhere called that? The NHS spends most of its time catching people when they fall. Health comes from a decent start in life, a warm dry home, enough to eat and a decent education. Those are the things that deliver health, but there is nothing like them in the Bill.

Particularly, and surprisingly, there is nothing in the Bill on reducing harm from tobacco products and alcohol, which is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 to 4, which seek to strengthen the health warnings on all tobacco products; new clauses 7 to 10, which seek to allow regulation of tobacco pricing; and particularly new clause 6, because the use of sweet flavourings to entice children and young people to take up smoking is indefensible.

NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Richard Fuller

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Change in life is frequently a source of anxiety or downright scary. When people are young and change schools, when they get married or when they start a job, that change is scary. There is nothing scarier for a community than change in how its health services are provided, so perhaps it is not surprising that the NHS has found managing change to be one of the most profoundly difficult things to accomplish.

As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned, we frequently face substantial or overwhelming challenges in society, with people growing older and having more complex needs, and the requirement for more expensive equipment and supplies to meet ever increasing standards for and expectations of healthcare in our country. The NHS was presented with two options for change. One is radical and will meet those challenges in a fine future that offers great health outcomes for all, but sounds a little too scary. The other option is the incremental approach, which will move things along a little bit. It will not deal with the fundamentals but it will enable us to feel that we retain the institutions and structures with which we are familiar.

As someone who was born in Bedford hospital, grew up in Bedford and now represents Bedford, I am very familiar with each of the buildings and institutions in my community. To see them change is a very scary thing. When we consider processes of change, we have to recognise that the population start from that position of anxiety. It is therefore important that Members do not play on those anxieties. It is not effective opposition to create scare stories ahead of an outcome. That is not in the public interest. We can raise concerns, yes, but in a way that looks to the sensitivities of local situations. That is what I would like to focus on in my remarks: the specific circumstances of my part of the country.

I welcome the STP approach because of the integration of care with health and because it provides local authorities with a voice, for the first time, in decision making about local care choices. For the first time, the NHS will not be getting its own way, if this process lives up to the promise of local decision making. That will be helpful in getting local support and control. In my own locality, we have a cross-party community approach. We have a Liberal Democrat mayor, a Liberal-Labour group on the council and Conservative Members of Parliament. We are all united in an approach of wanting our voice heard on local care in the NHS. An STP is a way of us having that.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Would it not therefore have been more effective, particularly if there is cross-party working in the local authority, to have local consultation early on about what could be gained in exchange for what might be felt to be lost?

[Richard Fuller]

I very much appreciate the hon. Lady’s question, because it gets to my point. I am actually quite sceptical about what consultation means. She might not know that Bedford has been through a review process for our acute services. I was trying to measure the length of that process in terms of Members of Parliament for Corby: it preceded Louise Mensch becoming Member of Parliament, carried on through the whole period of Andy Sawford being Member of Parliament, and is now taking up the time of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). We do not involve Corby any more; it is now just Bedford and Milton Keynes. That process included consultation and participation, with the NHS saying that it wanted to listen to people. It consulted them, yes. Did it listen to them? No. It was the NHS’s own process. It ticked all the boxes, but it was a complete and utter disgrace to local accountability.

I do not have distrust of Pauline Philip, chief executive officer and leader of our STP, and I do not need to know everything. I want to know that our local authorities are having their voice heard in the process just as much as our local CCG, as they are our representatives. I feel relatively comfortable that the process will lead to options that are more acceptable to the population, because it involves local authorities as well as the NHS. We should, however, expect the outcomes of the process to be highly varied around the country. Some will be correct and acceptable, and will go forward. Others will be controversial, and others will be downright wrong. We should not curse this whole process across the country, because it achieves a difference in outcome in different parts of the country. We should be prepared to look at each on its own merits and judge them accordingly.