Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of call handlers at the South Western Ambulance Service, and to the staff there as a whole. He is right to draw attention to the improved performance that we have seen in recent weeks, and also right to point out that all parts of the United Kingdom have faced considerable challenges, particularly over the Christmas period when we saw a significant spike in flu levels.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have just heard in the Health and Social Care Committee that on strike days there was a drop in service demand, but also value added by the increased clinical support, resulting in better and more cost-effective decisions. Why does that happen on strike days rather than on every single day of the year?

[Steve Barclay]

We are taking a number of steps to improve performance, and not just on strike days—but I thought the hon. Lady was going to refer to the comment that she made about those on her own Front Bench, when she said:

“I think what our health team need to do is really spend more time in that environment with clinicians to really understand what drives them.”

We on this side of the House are spending a significant amount of time with clinicians, and it is important that those on the hon. Lady’s Front Bench do so as well.

NHS: Long-term Strategy

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend has campaigned so determinedly on the issue, and she is absolutely right. When I spoke about self-referral in an interview with The Times, it was partly with ophthalmology in mind. In the vast majority of cases and for the vast majority of conditions, self-referral will not be appropriate and it is right that people see a GP before being referred to specialist services. But when people go and see someone who is trained and qualified to investigate their eyes, and that person makes a clinical judgment that they need to see a specialist, how can it be that, rather than being referred straight to the specialist, they are sent off to a GP first? That is absolutely crazy. It is wasting valuable doctors’ appointments and is lengthening waiting times for patients.

Labour is willing to look with an open mind at how we improve the patient journey. It is that fresh thinking that the NHS needs and is so badly missing from this Government. That touches on what I have been saying about the need to fix the front door to the NHS in primary care, with more care in the community. Our plan to recruit more doctors will deliver better access to GPs and ease pressure on accident and emergency departments.

We have to take a look at the GP partnership model, which under this Government is withering on the vine. By 2026, a majority of GPs will be salaried. There are three routes: let it wither on the vine, as the Conservatives are doing; accept that it is in decline and have something better to follow as it phases out over time, which is how we would approach it; or accept that GP partnership is valuable, in which case we should rebuild it. I am open-minded about whether we phase out GP partnerships or whether we rebuild general practice, but what we cannot do is what the Conservatives are doing, which is allowing general practice to wither on the vine. That is exactly what they have done.

Do you know what I found most remarkable today, Mr Deputy Speaker? In advance of this debate, I received a letter from the Minister, no less—the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who is unfortunately not in his place—telling me that the current system of general practice is working. Bad news for you guys sat opposite, who are facing the patients and the voters at the next general election: your Ministers think that general practice is working. Your Ministers are therefore not looking at plans to fix it. Your Ministers are leaving you hanging out to dry at the next general election, because patients can see that only Labour is thinking about how to fix the front door to the NHS and rebuild general practice.

Our plan to recruit 8,500 mental health workers and provide community mental health clubs in every community—a plan championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan)—will deliver faster treatment, supporting schools and easing pressure on hospitals, as well as general practice.

Then there is the exit door of the hospitals to social care. Labour’s commitment to deliver better pay and better terms and conditions for care workers will reduce the 400,000 delayed discharges every month and provide a better quality of care for not just older people but working-age disabled people. There are so many people in hospital who would not need to be there if we could provide quality care in their homes, which is why our commitment to double the number of district nurses qualifying every year is central to our policy. We will also give every child a healthy start to life, with 5,000 more health visitors. [Interruption.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) has just said, from a sedentary position, “We need more GPs.” I know we need more GPs. Patients know we need more GPs. So why have the Government cut more than 5,000 GPs in the last decade?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have seen 13 years of failure in social care, with promises made and nothing ever delivered. There are now 165,000 social care vacancies, which is why the NHS is logjammed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to pay our social workers a fair wage? Agenda for Change is a framework already built; let us give social workers a decent wage for the excellent work that they do.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend has consistently made the powerful case that pay and terms and conditions are directly linked to retention. No wonder we are losing so many people, not just from the NHS but from social care, to other employers in sectors such as retail. Earlier today, in this Chamber, I heard the Prime Minister say that as the minimum wage increased care workers would benefit, which tells us that care professionals are on the minimum wage while doing a really difficult job. No wonder they are going off to other jobs that cause less stress and anxiety and are better paid. This is not the way to run a social care system. We understand that, but the Government do not.

NHS Winter Pressures

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right. That is why, in the run-up to Christmas, one of the ministerial priorities was to have a whole series of ministerial meetings with the chairs and chief executives of the integrated care boards, because, as the Government have recognised, it is through the integration of those 42 ICBs that we will bring health and social care together. The ICBs have been operationally in place since July and are ramping up at pace. One thing that is making a real difference to them is having control centres that allow patient flow to be tracked through the system—Maidstone is a good example—with the data allowing blockages, as a whole-of-system problem, to be gripped at a much earlier stage.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Staff retention in both the health sector and the social care sector is at the heart of this crisis, but staff cannot be retained if they are not paid and, if they are not paid this year, the issues will not be addressed. Will the Secretary of State recognise that when he set the remit for the pay review body, inflation was not where it is and we did not have a war in Ukraine, so factors have changed and the remit for pay must therefore change this year so that we can retain the staff to deliver what he proposes?

[Steve Barclay]

On delayed discharge, the key is having domiciliary care support. That is not about the NHS Agenda for Change contract; it is about funding for those in the social care sector. Around a quarter of delayed discharges are due to delays in what is known as pathway 1, the domiciliary care side. That is what the £500 million in particular recognised. We are putting in more money, but that is about the social care sector so we can get flow through delayed discharge.

NHS Industrial Action: Government Preparations

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

Representing the garrison city of Colchester, I have nothing but the utmost respect for our armed forces. It has not escaped my notice that many of them are on lower pay than NHS staff and will be giving up their time over Christmas to cover strike action. My right hon. Friend is right that to mitigate the impact of planned industrial action in the ambulance sector, NHS England has explored a range of measures, which include engaging with the Ministry of Defence on military support. As a contingency, a MACA request—a request for military aid to civil authorities—for a limited number of personnel has been submitted to the MOD. It was submitted at the end of last week, and the plan is that MOD personnel will be trained to drive ambulances, but only deployed where they are needed across the country.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government need to stop hiding behind the pay review body. The pay review body sorts out the distribution of the funding, while it is the Government who determine the size of the envelope, and it is the envelope that is in dispute. Why will the Minister not get a Treasury Minister alongside him and make sure they negotiate on the size of the envelope? If they can afford the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), they can afford a nurse.

[Will Quince]

The average pay settlements in the private sector range between 4% and 6%, and we want to have a fair deal for both NHS staff and the taxpayer. The hon. Lady makes reference to the pay review bodies, but it is important to stress that they are made up of independent experts. They recommended the uplifts for NHS staff, and in formulating their recommendations, the review bodies carefully considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including NHS system partners and trade unions. The independent pay review body is a respected mechanism, and we should accept its recommendations, which we have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

Of course, I would be keen to meet to try to address those issues and to build on the work that we are doing nationally.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York has had a dental desert for years. It is six years now to see an NHS dentist and the Government have made no change to improve that situation, or to bring more NHS centres into my area. In March, dentistry will be moving into integrated care systems and integrated care boards. How are they going to solve the problem?

[Neil O’Brien]

One problem has been that having large, remote regional commissioning for dentistry has meant that it is more unlikely that specific local problems will be picked up. That is why we are taking the step that the hon. Member has described. She is now complaining about it, even though it is a measure to get more local accountability over the way that services are commissioned.

NHS Staffing Levels

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. There can be no more poignant and devastating example of what this crisis is leading to.

The Health and Care Act is a privatising piece of legislation that opens the door to private companies having a greater say in the delivery of health care. Guidance by NHS England, while the Act was going through Parliament, stated that it would enable integrated care boards to delegate functions to providers, including devolving budgets to provider collaboratives. Provider collaboratives are partnership arrangements involving at least two trusts, and they can include representation from the private or independent sector.

As we now know, the delegation of commissioning from ICBs to provider collaboratives will definitely go ahead. That represents not only the opportunity for the privatisation of the NHS, but clearly has implications for NHS staff. I am concerned that a situation may well arise where a provider collaborative decides to commission services from the private sector, instead of from the NHS provider that is currently delivering the service. In that instance, NHS staff may well find that their jobs are lost from the NHS, and that equivalent work is available only in the private sector, on poorer pay and conditions of service.

The Health and Care Act, which was passed by the Conservative Government earlier this year, has the potential to undermine national collective bargaining, and the pay and terms and conditions of NHS staff. It also undermines the concept of the NHS as a publicly owned organisation that has served us so well since 1948. The Act prohibits the chair of an ICB from approving or appointing someone as a member of any committee or sub-committee that exercises commissioning functions, if the chair considers that the appointment could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service, because of the candidate’s involvement with the private healthcare sector or otherwise. However, that is clearly open to interpretation. It by no means rules out people with interests in private healthcare from sitting on those sub-committees.

If we are serious about providing governance that rules out the possibility of the private sector influencing the expenditure of public money, an organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf should be a statutory NHS body. It is a great pity that the Government did not legislate for that, despite an amendment in my name calling for it, which had cross-party support.

Private companies can also have influence through integrated care partnerships, which are required to prepare a strategy setting out how the assessed needs of its area are to be met. ICBs must have regard to a strategy drawn up by an ICP, which I am concerned might be influenced by private companies. Of course, the responsibility of a private company is to make money for shareholders; it is not to support a publicly owned, publicly run national health service.

Other provisions in the Act also have serious implications for staff. The Act allows for a profession that is currently regulated to be removed from statutory regulation. That is deeply concerning. Once a profession is deregulated, we can expect the level of expertise in that field to decline over time, alongside the status and pay of those carrying out those important roles. Deregulation also brings with it serious long-term implications for the health and safety of patients.

The Act also provides for the revoking of the national tariff and its replacement with a new NHS payment scheme. Engagement on the NHS payment scheme is still under way, with a statutory consultation due to begin shortly. I have long been concerned that, given the requirement in the Act for NHS England to consult with each relevant provider before publishing the NHS payment scheme, including private providers, this may well be a mechanism through which the Government will give private health companies the opportunity to undercut the NHS. If that happens, I believe that one of the inevitable outcomes would be an erosion of the scope of “Agenda for Change”, as healthcare that should be provided by the NHS is increasingly delivered by the private sector.

In that event, NHS staff may then find themselves forced out of jobs that are currently on “Agenda for Change” rates of pay, pensions and other terms and conditions, with only private-sector jobs with potentially lesser pay and conditions available for them to apply for if they wish to continue working in the health service. Just like the provision around provider collaboratives, that would appear to hold risk for NHS staff and their pay and conditions. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister will guarantee that the pay rates of “Agenda for Change”, pensions, and other terms and conditions of all eligible current NHS staff will not be undermined as a result of the adoption of the NHS payment scheme. Can he also confirm that trade unions, staff representative bodies and all the royal colleges will be consulted before the NHS payment scheme is published, as Ministers in the other place assured us during the passage of the Act?

I understand that the Government are to publish a comprehensive NHS workforce plan next year, including independently verified workforce forecasts of the number of doctors, nurses and other professionals we will need in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. Such a plan is long overdue, so can the Minister provide some further details about when we will see it? Will that plan also include details of the numbers of staff we will need in the social care sector, where there is also a workforce crisis that is intricately linked to that in the NHS? Will the Minister set out what measures he is taking to address the staffing crisis this winter?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reality is that today, we are training NHS professionals in the same professional silos as we did 100 years ago. Medicine has moved on massively, so in light of the fact that a new workforce plan is being drawn up, is it not right that those professions are revisited to ensure we have a workforce fit for the future, as opposed to doing things just because we have done them for so many years?

[Margaret Greenwood]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an interesting and detailed point born of her experience. The Minister should take note.

To conclude, since 2010, Conservative Governments have let the crisis in NHS staffing develop. Instead of doing the important business of Government and bringing forward a timely workforce plan and a properly funded training regime, they have focused their energy on not one, but two, major reorganisations of the national health service designed to open it up to privatisation. Instead of tending to the needs of the workforce and the needs of patients, they have been priming the pump for shareholders. The NHS must remain a comprehensive universal service, publicly owned, paid for through direct taxation and free at the point of use for all who need it. That very concept is under threat: it has been reported this week that NHS leaders in Scotland have discussed abandoning the founding principles of the NHS by having the wealthy pay for treatment, thus creating a two-tier system. Not only would that be a betrayal of its founding principles, but it would also bring in costly administrative processes that are not currently needed, as patients would need to be means-tested.

The NHS is also under threat from this Conservative Government’s failure to get a grip on the staffing crisis, and from their privatisation agenda. This attack on the fundamental principles of a comprehensive, universal, publicly owned national health service, free to all who need it and paid for through direct taxation, has left patients neglected and staff overworked and underpaid. Patients, the NHS, and all who work in the service deserve better. The Government must come forward as a matter of urgency with a credible plan to put things right for NHS staff and set out how they are going to deal with the crisis this winter, and Ministers must give NHS workers a fair pay rise, protect NHS services, and ensure staff safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your stewardship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for initiating the debate.

Where do I begin on this subject? It is difficult to know because Members have brought forward a plethora of information, but I will start with the House of Commons Library briefing, which is always a good source of information, and its research is based on independent sources. It says that the Health and Social Care Committee has said:

“The National Health Service and the social care sector are facing the greatest workforce crisis in their history.”

The NHS, which is the best part of 80 years old, is facing the worst crisis in its history, with a vacancy rate of 9.7%, which is 132,139 members of staff.

There is significant shortfall in staff across the piece. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about vacancies in pharmacy, dentistry, radiology, podiatry, ambulance staff, back-office staff—as those people who are at the heart of the service and keep it going are disparagingly called—cleaners and porters. Everybody says the whole NHS is under huge stress.

[Rachael Maskell]

I want to highlight the neuroradiology profession and the reality that staff shortages have an impact on clinical outcomes. Hardly any of our NHS trusts have neuroradiologists, but they could save 9,000 lives lost to strokes by being able to advance new techniques. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to look at the clinical outcomes that health professionals could bring?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right: it is crucial that we do that. A whole range of issues are beginning to affect staffing. For example, there is a £9 billion maintenance backlog in the NHS. Patients are being treated in hospitals that are not, in certain situations, fit for purpose and, importantly, staff have to work in those environments. In many cases, radiology equipment is not up to date, so staff and patients are either working or being treated in an environment in which the conditions and the equipment are not good. That goes to the heart of the staffing crisis as well.

There are lots of suggestions about how the Government could get to grips with the situation. Community Pharmacy England has plans to “resolve the funding squeeze”, which seems pretty straightforward, to

“tackle regulatory and other burdens”

that are affecting staffing, to

“help pharmacies to expand their role in primary care”

and to

“commission a Pharmacy First service”.

All those things go to the heart of enabling staff to feel wanted and that they are working in an environment where they are treated properly.

Of course, we then get people leaving in droves because of pay. I looked at some of the figures in relation to the pay restraint that we have had for the past few years: since the Government came to power in 2010, for all intents and purposes there has been either no pay increase or an increase of 1% here and 2% there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Alongside the Government, no one wants to see better patient outcomes more than GPs themselves. By their training, they are evidence-led, so I look forward to discussing with the GP workforce how we can work together in a constructive spirit to deliver on whatever the evidence is showing. As I said, there is a body of evidence around continuity of care, but it is more weighted towards those with more complex needs, and not every patient prioritises that in terms of access to their GP.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Health and Social Care Committee report showed that continuity of care was best for patient safety, which is so important, but in order to deliver that, there needs to be some headroom at practice level to bring about a reorientation of local services. How will the Secretary of State create that headroom, and will he adopt the report’s findings in full?

[Steve Barclay]

I know that the hon. Lady has a lot of expertise in this area, and she raises a valid and important point. That is why, through the GP contract framework for 2020-21, we announced a number of new national retention schemes and continued support for existing schemes to retain more GPs. It is also why, at the other end, we are boosting training numbers, to get more GPs into the pipeline.

NHS Dentistry

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

That is a point well made. Another factor is that there are deep inequalities in access to dentistry. In my constituency, it is difficult to get to see an NHS dentist for love or money. I am not blaming the dentists; they are doing a fantastic job in the circumstances. They are going over and above their duty. I put on the record my thanks—as I am sure we all would—to my dentist practice, which I have been with for over 45 years. Dentists are doing a fantastic job, but they have both their hands tied behind their back at the moment. That has to change.

Some 91% of people, including 80% of children, are not able to access a dentist, and 75% of dentists are reducing their NHS engagement. The new contract announced before the summer did not really do anything and there was no new money with it. There is a significant gap—potentially as much as £750 million—in the resources that dentists need.

Another aspect is dentists’ morale, with 87% having experienced stress, burnout or depression in the last 12 months. That is a dreadful situation to put a committed profession in. We have a scenario in our country in which dentists who trained for seven or eight years—possibly more—and practised for many years are now getting to the stage where the majority are stressed, burned out or depressed. That is dreadful. According to one study, half of them are considering changing career. Some of them are seeking early retirement or going fully private. They are getting stressed out because they just cannot move the dial. They are waiting for the Government to move it, but the Government are not moving it.

Children in my constituency are three times more likely to have their teeth extracted in a hospital because they do not have access to a dentist. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) and the hon. Member for Bath referred to oral cancer. That is identified very early on—and who does the identification? Surprise: it is often the dentist. We need substantive support from the Government, not tinkering around with the contract. We need them to provide adequate funding.

Dentists must not be an afterthought. They are a vital component of the health of the nation. We must build on the historical commitment to prevention; that is key—as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. Dentists have had enough; they are under pressure. My constituents have had enough; they are under pressure. The Government have to do something about it.

In the debate before the summer, I referred, in relation to the lack of substantive action by the Government, to a rejigging of what Ian Fleming said about crisis: if once is happenstance and twice is coincidence, three times is friendly fire and four times is enemy action. We are now in a situation where the Government are perceived as the enemy because of their lack of action.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise that I was not able to be here for the whole debate; I have been in a Bill Committee. In York, people have to wait six years to see a dentist. Of course that is completely unacceptable, but my real concern is that, with the transition of dental services into integrated care systems, ICSs will not have the powers—the levers—to make the difference on training, funding and the contract and, ultimately, dentistry will be pushed into a tug of war between ICSs and the Government.

[Peter Dowd]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter because it is something that I was going to raise. The health service, because of the reorganisation, is in an element of flux. It is feeling under a bit of pressure. Potentially, people are having to reapply for jobs in the broader sense in the NHS because of the reorganisation. That is a fact. I am not sure whether we should be having a reorganisation of the NHS in the post-covid environment, but that is a different argument for a different day. The broader dissonance in the system now multiplies the problems that we are having in dental practices, because they are getting pushed further away, which is why practices need representation on these boards. I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted that point.

As I said in the debate before the summer, we do not want any more excuses from the Government. We do not want any more prevarication, any more procrastination, any more pretext or any more self-exoneration. I hope the Government and the Minister, whom I welcome to his place, really get the sense of the frustration and, in certain situations, anger in the Chamber today. They really must pull their finger out—if not people’s teeth.

Liver Disease and Liver Cancer: Diagnosis

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing this important debate, as well as on the important work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) do with the APPG.

While there are multiple causes of liver disease, such as from viral hepatitis, obesity and alcohol, I particularly want to focus on alcohol. Successive Health Ministers will know that, over a period of time, I have consistently raised concerns about the absence of a comprehensive alcohol strategy. This afternoon we have heard only too clearly why that is so important. For too long, alcohol has been promoted as a social norm, and not to imbibe as an anomaly, yet the scale of alcohol harm, psychologically and physically, is off the radar. It is something that is causing me significant concern, whether it is used for pleasure or to address pain. It must become a priority of this Government.

In a city where I see more and more licensing of premises, I am aware of the impact and harm that that is having on livers. We see it in the statistics. My discussions with the British Liver Trust over the summer highlighted the fact that more and more people with liver harm were younger and sicker. Our excellent public health team in York says that it is their No. 1 concern. When we match that against the fact that 90% of liver harm is preventable, we realise that there must be a more comprehensive strategy. As the profile of those with liver disease changes, so must investment in prevention, diagnostics and disease management.

Astoundingly, since 2010 hospital admissions for liver disease have risen by a staggering 45%. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICS currently has no clinical pathway for the early detection of liver disease. I have written to express my concern, and the ICS tells me it will respond on 4 November.

There are many causes of liver disease and cancer, but prevention and early detection can make a significant difference to outcomes. In Yorkshire and the Humber, our pressurised NHS is seeing a 13% increase on the national average for admission rates due to liver disease, and rates are 38% higher for alcohol-related liver disease. In York, alcohol is a major factor in A&E attendance. For women in York, admissions due to liver disease are 30% higher than the national average. As we focus on York being a drinking capital, we have to look at those correlations.

Over the covid period, many people turned to alcohol as a means of addressing other needs. When so many people are dying from alcohol-related disease, the Government must turn their attention to that matter—not least because we know the impact it has on the most deprived communities, as we have heard. In York, the mortality differential is 10 years between the most deprived communities and the wealthiest. One in four with alcohol-related liver disease will die in hospital within 60 days of detection.

I know from working on a ward specialising in hepatology how important this subject is, but also how tragic it is for families. That is why I urge the Government to focus attention on this public health matter in a way akin to Dame Carol Black’s work on drug-abuse harms. There were 4,859 drug deaths in 2021. I am not belittling that statistic at all, but the fact that there are 10,000 liver deaths—over double—really demands the Government’s attention and a strategy. However, there is none in place.

That is why the Minister has a unique opportunity—one that she must take hold of. Ministers can turn their attention to so many things, but getting on top of this issue, driving a strategy that makes that difference and ensuring that every community has a diagnostic centre, as York longs to, could make a serious difference to our communities and our nation. I trust that she will embark on an alcohol strategy and ensure that there are community diagnostic centres, that alcohol harm is properly addressed and focused on, and that we also understand and focus on non-alcohol related fatty liver disease. We have an opportunity to double down on tackling liver disease, and I trust that this Government will not let this moment pass.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

To co-operate with the timing, we head to the Front Benches, with five minutes for the Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to wind up.

Urgent and Emergency Care

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking the paramedics in Medway, in Maidstone and beyond for all their fantastic work, especially given the pressures the system has been under during the summer. As for levelling up, a number of Members have raised with me the need to ensure that developers are making a sufficient contribution as part of their housing plans, and I shall be happy to draw that to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State is right to talk about the back door rather than focusing on the front door when it comes to the crisis in social care. About a quarter of the patients in our hospital in York are experiencing delayed discharges. However, if we do not pay care staff, we will never resolve the issue. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to putting those staff on a national pay scale, using “Agenda for Change” as a model?

[Steve Barclay]

This obviously involves debates with Treasury colleagues about pay—not just on the social care side, but in respect of the NHS and the interplay with pensions—but it is not just about that; it is also about ensuring that we have the right data, and through the integrated care systems we are acquiring much better data to improve our ability to join up what is being spent on delayed discharge within the NHS with what is being done in the social care setting. I am sure Members will agree that not only is it often very damaging for frail elderly patients to spend a long time in hospital, but hospital is usually the most expensive place in the system for them to be. It is not just a question of having more money, although that is often the default; it is a question of thinking about how to get flow into the system in a way that will deliver not only patient care, but a more efficient service.