Covid-19: Government’s Publication of Contracts

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will make a statement on the recent court order regarding the Government’s publication of contracts during the covid-19 pandemic.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

Although I am not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I hope the hon. Lady will none the less allow me to respond to her urgent question.

The first duty of any Government in a crisis is protecting their citizens, so our work to provide personal protective equipment was a critical part of our response. It was a herculean effort that involved setting up a new logistics network from scratch and expanding our PPE supply chain from 226 NHS trusts in England to more than 58,000 different settings. Our team has been working night and day on this vital national effort, and I can update the House that we have now delivered more than 8.8 billion items of PPE to those who need it. That work was taking place at a time when global demand was greater than ever before and rapid action was required, so we had to work at an unprecedented pace to get supplies to our frontline and the public.

Two weeks ago, in response to an urgent question from the hon. Lady, I updated the House on the initial High Court ruling. I will not set out that judgment at length once again, save to say that the case looked not at the awarding of the contracts, but rather at the delays in publishing the details of them as we responded to one of the greatest threats to public health that this country has ever seen. The hon. Lady’s question refers to a short declaratory judgment handed down subsequent to the original judgment in this matter, which makes a formal order as to the Government’s compliance with the relevant regulatory rules.

As before, I reiterate that we of course take the judgment of the Court very seriously and respect it. We have always been clear that transparency is vital, and the Court itself has found that there was no deliberate policy to delay publication. The fight against covid-19 is ongoing. As would be expected, we are agreeing new contracts as part of that fight all the time, and we will keep publishing details of them as we move forward.

I care passionately about transparency, and so does everyone in my Department. We will of course continue to look at how we can improve our response while we tackle one of the greatest threats to our public health that this nation has ever seen.

[Rachel Reeves]

This question and the answers to it really matter because our frontline workers were not adequately protected with the high-quality PPE that they needed during the pandemic. They matter because it is essential that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and fairly, not handed out to those who happen to have close links with the party of government.

The Government ran down the PPE stockpile ahead of the pandemic, and that came back to haunt us when we needed it most. Contracts were handed out—many to friends of and donors linked to the Conservative party —without any transparency. The Good Law Project took the Government to court, and on 19 February the High Court ruled that the Government had acted unlawfully, saying:

“The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the…contracts were awarded.”

Three days later, in this House, the Prime Minister said that

“the contracts are there on the record for everybody to see”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]

But they are not. A judge confirmed through a court order last Friday that 100 contracts are still to be published. Will the Minister now take this opportunity to apologise for that statement and to put the record straight? Will the Government now finally agree to publish all 100 outstanding contracts by the end of this week?

For contracts that have failed, will the Minister tell us how much money has been and will be clawed back for taxpayers? Can he tell us which businesses were in the VIP fast lane for getting Government contracts and how they got there? Finally, can he honestly tell our brilliant NHS nurses, now facing a pay cut, that the Government have not wasted a single penny of their money on this curious incident of the missing contracts?

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Lady once again at the Dispatch Box—two weeks after we were last here. I will do my best to answer the questions she raised, not just for my own Department, but more broadly across Government.

The hon. Lady raised a number of points. She is absolutely right to say that transparency matters, because transparency of procurement and transparency in Government is one of the foundations of the trust that is so vital to our democracy. That is why we are working flat out to ensure that, as new contracts are awarded, the contract award notices and other relevant pieces of information are published in line with the requirements of regulations.

What is most important, though, is to recognise the situation that we faced last year, with rising infection rates, rising hospitalisation rates and the need to do everything we could—to “strain every sinew”, to quote one of the hon. Lady’s letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the time—to make sure we got those working flat out on the frontline what they needed to keep them safe. I pay tribute to the officials in my Department, who did exactly that: they focused on getting what was needed in bulk in an incredibly challenging global market, to make sure that PPE did not run out.

The hon. Lady quite rightly quoted the judgment, and I will quote paragraph 149 of the judgment—the original judgment, not the supplementary judgment. The judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, stated that

“the overall picture shows the Secretary of State moving close to complete compliance. The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”

I think that recognises the efforts that have been put in place to ensure that we meet our transparency requirements. One hundred per cent. of the Department’s CANs—contract aware notices—have been published.

The hon. Member asked a particular question in referring to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s comments on 22 February—I hope I am correct in surmising that. My right hon. Friend was responding to a question around the failure to publish the details of specific contracts that are subject to judicial reviews. I am advised that, at the time of his statement, the details for all the contracts under scrutiny were published.

Covid Contracts: Judicial Review

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the recent judicial review ruling, which found the Government had acted unlawfully in respect of covid contracts.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

Protecting those who protect us has been one of the Government’s most important goals in our fight against covid-19. To do that, we have had to expand our personal protective equipment supply chain—it has gone from supplying 226 NHS trusts in England to supplying more than 58,000 different settings—and we have had to create a whole new logistics network from scratch. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of so many people, we have delivered more than 8.6 billion items of PPE to the frontline so far, with billions more ordered and being supplied.

Our team worked night and day to procure PPE within very short timescales and against the background of unparalleled global demand. That often meant working at incredible speed, especially in the early months of the pandemic, to secure the vital supplies required to protect NHS workers and the public, which we did.

Let me turn specifically to the High Court judgment. There has been a lot of confusion about what the ruling said and did not say, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify that to the House today. The High Court case did not look at the awarding of the contracts; rather, it looked at the timing of the publication of the details of contracts awarded. The court ruled that at this time of unprecedented pressure, contract award notices were not all published in the timescales required by the regulations. However, it also found that there was no deprioritisation policy in that respect in the Department. As we set out to the court, the delays were caused by the workload involved in responding to one of the greatest threats to public health that this country has ever seen.

We take our transparency requirements very seriously, and it is important that I put on the record that we of course take the judgment of the court very seriously and respect it. We are working with colleagues across Government to implement the recommendations set out in the report published earlier this month by the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), but as we do that, we will keep acting quickly and decisively to respond to this deadly threat, and we continue to do all we can to help save lives.

[Rachel Reeves]

A stain has emerged on this Government’s response to the crisis. There has been an unedifying goldrush of chums and chancers; £2 billion-worth of contracts have been handed to those with close links to the Conservative party, from the Health Secretary’s pub landlord, to the donors, manifesto writers and the old boys’ club—they have all had a return on their investment at our expense.

The Government have been taken to court, and they lost, which cost taxpayers even more money. The Home Secretary once said that she wanted people

“to literally feel the terror at the thought of committing offences.”

She does not have to look to the streets to find law-breakers; she only has to look across the Cabinet table. This Government are not terrified of breaking the law, because they think they are above the law.

Now that the Government have lost in court, I ask the Minister: what was the cost to taxpayers of fighting this case? Will the Government agree today to publish the names of all businesses in their VIP fast lane and say how they got on that list? Will all overdue contracts be published by the end of this week? When will the management consultants hired locate the billions of pounds of PPE that the Government seem to have misplaced? When will clawback be used to get back taxpayers’ money for contracts that have failed to deliver? Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the doctors, nurses, care workers and other frontline workers who did not have the PPE that they needed, and who had to make makeshift PPE—because, contrary to what the Health Secretary said, there was a shortage of PPE and those working on the frontline were not protected?

While he is here, will the Minister, Serco’s former head of public affairs, reveal the mystery of why the Government created Serco Test and Trace, rather than a true NHS test and trace embedded in our communities? NHS workers, care workers and taxpayers deserve better. We deserve the end of crony contracts from this Government.

[Edward Argar]

Notwithstanding the circumstances and the approach adopted by the hon. Lady, it is a pleasure to appear opposite her at the Dispatch Box for the first time. She raised a number of specific points, but before I turn to them, I have to reiterate what the judgment did and did not do. The judgment focused on timely publication of contract notices; it did not make any judgment on, or consider in any way, the appropriateness of the contracting process or any of the individual processes.

The hon. Lady alleges impropriety and inappropriate behaviour—wrong. The National Audit Office report was absolutely clear that there was no evidence of any inappropriate behaviour, and indeed no court has found this. I highlight to her that the judgment was a declaratory judgment, and it stated that there had been a breach of the regulation 50 requirements. The judge subsequently highlighted, in paragraph 149:

“But the overall picture shows the Secretary of State moving close to complete compliance. The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”

I remind the House, and indeed the hon. Lady, of the situation we faced back in April. There were 3,301 people in mechanical ventilation beds, 21,307 people in hospital with covid, and at the beginning of April, according to our best understanding of positive cases at the time, the average number of positive cases and patients in hospital was doubling every seven days. In those circumstances, I make no apologies for the Government doing everything in our power to ensure that the NHS and frontline workers did not run out of PPE. As the National Audit Office has acknowledged, there was no national shortage of PPE at the time and throughout the pandemic.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. She talked about the current situation regarding publication, compliance and costs. As I have mentioned to her briefly before, there is an element of this case that is yet to be concluded, as some information is due to be provided to the judge on Friday. We will do exactly that, and the information will be made public when it goes to the court. We respect the court’s role in the process, but I expect the judge to have that published in a couple of days’ time.

On the priority route, if I recall correctly, many Members on both sides of the House requested expeditious consideration of offers of help, and I am grateful to all who made those offers. Every one of those went through an eight-stage process, run by civil servants, entirely appropriately. They checked the appropriateness of the PPE and the organisation supplying it, and conducted due diligence. Indeed, as I recall, the hon. Lady herself, on 22 April, published a letter that she had sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—it was helpfully analysed at the time by the Guido Fawkes website—sharing some of her suggestions of companies or individuals that should be put through rapid assessment. I acknowledge that she said that there should be assessment and due diligence, but she asked that they be assessed rapidly. I believe that many Members of the House took the same approach. In that letter, she concluded:

“We need Government to strain every sinew and utilise untapped resources in UK manufacturing, to deliver essential equipment to frontline workers. This must be a national effort which leaves no stone unturned.”

She was right. I agreed with her sentiment then, and I still do, but she no longer appears to agree with herself.

Local Contact Tracing

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the consistently high performance of local contact tracing systems when compared with the centralised system established by the Government; notes the wealth of evidence that the considerable sums of public money spent so far on the national system would deliver better public health outcomes if devolved to local authorities and public health experts; and calls on the Government to extend the additional funding for contact tracing available in Tier 3 areas to all parts of the country and ensure that councils and local public health teams receive the resources and powers they require.

This Government are obsessed with a failed model of outsourcing. It is failing to reach people who come into contact with someone with the virus, it is not getting information to local councils who need to act on it, and it is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that could be spent on a local response using local expertise. It is not too late for the Government to change course, and I urge them to do so today.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the case for a short, sharp circuit break of restrictions lasting two to three weeks to firmly apply the brakes on the rising infection numbers that we are seeing. A crucial aim of the circuit break is to drive down infections, but there is another purpose as well: it would buy the Government some crucial time to fix the failures in contact tracing.

The current model of contact tracing is broken and it will get worse, not better, while corporations such as Serco are allowed in the driving seat rather than local public health teams. We might ask: how bad is the Government’s approach to contact tracing?

One director of public health said:

“It needs someone with the courage to say”

it “isn’t working”, and it was described as a

“catastrophe…the very worst system I’ve…seen”.

Well, we do have the courage to say that it is not working and I urge the Government to have that courage, too.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight Serco. Does she agree that another problem with test and trace is the number of consultants being employed, with more than a thousand from one firm alone—Deloitte—that charges several thousand pounds a day for its senior consultants? Should we not be told how much it is costing and what these people are doing?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend makes his point well. He has been a staunch advocate of transparency and value for money in the delivery of public services. The Government’s own Minister in the Cabinet Office in the other place has made those points as well, saying that the Government are spending too much money on consultants when that work could be done in-house with better value for taxpayers. I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

The minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meeting from three weeks ago on 21 September, as well as suggesting a circuit break to deal with the rising infection numbers, reflected on the performance of the Government’s approach to test, trace and isolate. The minutes said that

“relatively low levels of engagement with the system…coupled with testing delays…is having a marginal impact on transmission”.

All that money spent, yet this key part of the Government’s system to keep us safe is only having a marginal impact on transmission.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that this is a unique situation? This is one of the worst crises that this country has ever faced, and I invite her to assist the Government, rather than constantly opposing every measure that the Government are taking in what is an extremely challenging situation.

[Rachel Reeves]

That is exactly why I am urging the Government to use the local expertise we have in all our local authorities around the country. We should not reinvent the wheel, but use that local expertise, rather than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The Prime Minister promised a world-beating test and trace system, yet we have one that is barely functioning. We have a system that is now so broken that SAGE is saying it is making next to no difference. We are all paying the price for these terrible mistakes. The truth is that as soon as the Government looked to a privatised solution, a political choice was made about how to respond to a public health crisis.

Serco is not integrated into the fabric of any of our communities. Ministers could have spoken to the Local Government Association. They could have spoken to the Association of Directors of Public Health. Instead, they chose to speak to Serco. There is a cosiness between the Conservative Government and these outsourcing companies, despite their failures to deliver.

Let us look at Serco’s record. Last year, Serco was fined £23 million as part of a settlement with the Serious Fraud Office over electronic tagging contracts. In December, two former senior executives at Serco were charged for that offence. In 2018, Serco was fined £2.8 million after it was revealed that it was providing asylum seekers with squalid, unsafe slum housing.

One would think that whenever Serco bids for a contract, sirens would be going off all over Whitehall, except that Serco did not bid for the contact tracing contract. It was handed it on a plate, with no competition, no rigour and no transparency. Ministers may claim that it is a coincidence that hundreds of millions of pounds of public contracts have been awarded to companies with clear links to the Conservative party, including Serco. That would be a heck of a coincidence, wouldn’t it?

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am glad to see the old tendency is back in the Opposition of private bad, public good. With the hon. Lady’s proposal around local authorities wanting to do more on test and trace, presumably they would not be doing it for free. They would have to be paid, and it would cost a lot of money. Presumably she has costed that. Will she just put on the record for the House at what price she has costed that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Let us be clear: there are places that are doing this—for example, Wales, to which I shall come later—and the difference between what we see with Serco and what we see when it is done in-house is that with the latter more people are being traced, which means more people are going into self-isolation and a slower spread of the virus. That protects all our lives and means that our economy can get back on track. The Government are the ones who are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a system that is failing—a system that is letting us down.

Outsourced contact tracing is part of £11 billion of public procurement in this pandemic that has not gone out to competitive tender. The Government do not even know whether they are getting value for money because they do not even bother to test it in the marketplace or against what local authorities can deliver. For the outsourcing companies this is a gold rush. I have called for the National Audit Office to investigate, and I look forward to its findings later this year. I am sure that all Members will look forward to the findings from that investigation so that they can check for themselves that they are getting the value for money that they seem to believe they are getting.

One issue that I hope the National Audit Office addresses is the murky subcontracting of the Government’s contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) asked the Government how many companies Serco has subcontracted its work on contact tracing to; the answer was 29 companies other than Serco. The amount subcontracted to other firms represents 80% of staffing. Who are these businesses? The Government have refused to say—because Serco decided that it was too commercially sensitive. We now have a Government that outsource even decisions to private outsourcing companies. The situation is frankly ludicrous.

It has taken investigative journalists, whistleblowers and the Good Law Project to start to piece together the jigsaw. Why the shyness? Presumably because if the Government revealed what was going on, it would not stand up to public scrutiny. One business to which Serco has subcontracted work is Concentrix, which was previously involved in scandals relating to tax credits.

In September, it was reported that another Serco subcontractor, Intelling, was paying bonuses of £500 to staff despite poor contact rates. One contact tracer employed by Intelling was reported to have said:

“I couldn’t believe it when I got my bonus. It’s an absolute disgrace…I’m getting paid and now given a bonus for doing nothing…I really want to help and be involved and make calls and be useful. But I’m not being given anything to do. The system is on its knees.”

This evidence is devastating because it shows that people who should have been contacted are not being contacted and that, far from what the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, the Government are handing out money to companies without getting the value for money that we should all be demanding.

I challenge the Minister today to name all Serco’s subcontractors and to publish details on how much they have been paid and for what. I will give way to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), if she would like to tell the House that information. This is revealing: either they do not know, they do not care, or they will not say. I fear that the more we know about what is happening under the bonnet in contact tracing, the worse it gets.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I fear that the hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. She told the House that the Government did not speak to local government authorities throughout the country, but on 22 May, many months before Labour even started to talk about involving local authorities, the Government provided £300 million for local authorities to set up local test and trace services, so what she said at the Dispatch Box was patently untrue and she should apologise.

[Rachel Reeves]

Local councils are desperate to take on the responsibilities from Serco. They are begging the Government: “Hand over the resources and the responsibilities, because we can do it better than you.” I will come later to the issues relating to what the Government are doing with tier 3 compared with the other tiers.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour is making an excellent speech. If local authorities undertake similar procurement, they have to utilise best value and have a social value framework. If they conducted procurement as the Government have, the Government would bring in commissioners. This is an absolute scandal.

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend will know that in Leeds, which we both have the privilege of representing, with the expertise we have on the ground, our local authority and director of public health could be doing a much better job than Serco is doing. Indeed, when we have had local outbreaks in Leeds, it has been the local authority going out and knocking on doors to ensure that people know what is going on—something that Serco cannot or does not do.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that £300 million had been given to local authorities to do tracking and tracing. My recollection is that it was not given for that purpose. It was given to local authorities to help them develop outbreak control plans and set up outbreak control committees. There has never been any general amount of money given to local authorities to do tracking and tracing. That has been a demand, but it has not been responded to by the Government.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, who is better informed than most in the House.

In the last Parliament, I had the honour of chairing the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and it was a privilege to see the work of so many businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. I also chaired the inquiry into the collapse of Carillion—a house of cards built through outsourced contracts from Government. When I see the endless contracts and the enormous sums of money handed over today to outsourcing companies, I cannot help but conclude that the Government have learnt none of the lessons from that collapse and that failure. It makes me really angry that, despite all the work done and all the evidence presented, the same thing is happening again.

There are clear alternatives, and there always were. The World Health Organisation issued clear guidance for contact tracing, which states:

“Critical elements of the implementation of contact tracing are community engagement and public support”.

That should have been the model for England, so why was it not? We do not need to travel halfway round the world for a successful alternative. We can look to Wales—a model where contact tracing is devolved to local communities. In the most recent figures for Wales, of the 2,190 positive cases that were eligible for follow-up, 91% were reached and asked to provide details of their recent contacts. Of the 10,516 contacts, 83% were successfully contacted. That is in stark contrast with the Government’s Serco model, in which just 69% of contacts were reached—a figure that is getting worse week in, week out.

Perhaps if the Welsh Government were a private outsourcing consultancy, the Government would have paid them a small fortune to take over the system in England. Instead, the Government turned to outside consultants, paid £563,000 of public money this summer for producing a report on test and trace—a report that we have all paid for, but none of us has seen. The Government could have learned valuable lessons for free. They could have gone to Mark Drakeford rather than to McKinsey.

Knowing all this, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and I wrote to the Health Secretary in August, urging him not to renew Serco’s contract and to put public health teams in charge. However, Serco’s contract was not terminated—it was extended. Out of necessity, with Serco tracing failing, many councils have had to create their own tracing systems with a fraction of the money. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government knows that this is a problem. On Sunday, he said that local councils are

“bound to be better than Whitehall or national contact tracers.”

That begs the question, why not give those resources, powers and responsibilities to local government if even the Secretary of State realises that they would do a better job and deliver better value for money? Instead, the Government have wasted over half a year on a system that is failing, with mounting evidence of that growing by the day.

It is quite simple. As Liz Robin, director of public health in Peterborough, has pointed out, people were always more likely to answer a call from a local phone number, and unlike national contact tracers, local tracers are able to knock on doors and visit people if they are not responding. Peterborough has managed to contact between 80% and 90% of the cases that the national tracers were not able to. As the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, said:

“Council leaders in many regions have been relying on volunteers but this cannot continue. It can’t be done on the cheap—councils have to be given more resources to employ expanded, trained teams.”

The resources need to be shifted from Serco to our local authorities.

The Minister will argue, I am sure, that local and national teams are working perfectly well together, but if she were to show some humility and some honesty, she would admit that it is clear that local services are delivering better. In fact, the national system is hugely flawed, in that it is totally disconnected from the communities while hoovering up most of the resource. This week the Government said they would provide funding to councils for contact tracing in areas with a tier-3 alert level, but what about tiers 1 and 2 to stop them ending up in tier 3? It is a bit like a fire brigade handing out smoke alarms to a family whose house is already ablaze. They needed that support some time ago. If they had had it, they might not have ended up in this situation.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will make some progress and conclude to give others time to speak.

Ten years of austerity, fragmentation and privatisation have left our country less resilient to face a pandemic like this. Public health budgets have been slashed by cuts from central Government. Sustained new investment is needed to rebuild our public services during this crisis and beyond. The Government have squandered enormous sums of money on a centrally dictated outsourcing model, and Ministers should hang their heads in shame because it has failed.

The consequence of this failure means we are not getting the virus under control after months of sacrifice by the British people, so my message today is simple: sack Serco and give those resources to local councils, save lives, protect livelihoods and learn these lessons before it is too late.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister to respond, I give notice that we will start with a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches, and it is likely to be reduced quite soon.

Covid-19

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Both cases are covered by the formal public health advice that will be published on the gov.uk website. For all specific questions such as that, which of course our constituents will have, I refer them to that advice, to make sure that we get the answers completely accurate.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

We are now rightly asking people, including the self-employed, to self-isolate for seven or 14 days if they show symptoms of coronavirus. The self-employed do not qualify for statutory sick pay and there is no one else to pay them, so will the Government revisit statutory sick pay for the self-employed, and pay it at a rate that enables them to put food on the table and pay their bills? Unless we do that, we are asking people to make impossible decisions.

[Matt Hancock]

I discussed this issue with the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). The delivery of support to make sure that nobody is penalised for doing the right thing is incredibly important but, as the hon. Lady says, there is no employer for those who are self-employed, so it has to be delivered through the benefits system.

Coronavirus

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, that would be a pleasure.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

To follow up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), there are 4.7 million self-employed people, and currently they will not be entitled to statutory sick pay or contributory jobseeker’s allowance. The company Hermes, working with the GMB, has already said that it will offer support to its workers who cannot come to work because they have to self-isolate; other companies have not. What pressure are the Government putting on businesses such as Uber, Deliveroo and DPD to ensure that the people who deliver their services will be able to self-isolate?

[Matt Hancock]

I urge all companies, especially the large companies that, as the hon. Lady said, use an awful lot of self-employed workers to deliver their services, to look at what Hermes has done and appreciate that their part of the national effort is to help everybody to make sure that they can go home and stay at home if they need to stay at home to keep themselves and others safe.

Draft General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise etc.) Order 2015

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise etc.) Order 2015.

It is a pleasure to be in the Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Gillan. It is good to see hon. Members here and it is especially good to see the hon. Lady—I have forgotten her constituency, but it is good to see her back from maternity leave.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Leeds West.

[Ben Gummer]

Leeds West. I will go through this as quickly as possible. If Members have questions, they may raise them and I will try to respond quickly as well.

The Dentists Act 1984 established the General Dental Council and set out the GDC’s functions and processes. The GDC is responsible for regulating the dental workforce in all parts of the UK. It has powers and duties that include setting the standards of conduct, performance and behaviour that dentists and dental care professionals are expected to adhere to. In addition, it is responsible for investigating any complaints or concerns that suggest that a dental professional may have failed to meet those standards.

The Government are keen to ensure that the GDC has an appropriate framework in place to allow it to carry out its statutory responsibilities effectively. The current legislation that governs the early stages of an investigation into a dental professional’s fitness to practise does not provide sufficient flexibility to enable the GDC to carry out that function in the most effective and efficient way. Legislative change is needed to address that.

The order, made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999, amends the Dentists Act 1984 to reform the investigational stages of the GDC’s fitness to practise procedures. The Department of Health publicly consulted on the proposals in the order and the vast majority of respondents agreed that the measure should be introduced and would have a positive effect on the GDC’s fitness to practise procedures.

Through this section 60 order, I propose to provide the GDC with the powers to make five key amendments to its processes. First, the GDC will be provided with a rule-making power to allow it to delegate the decision-making functions currently exercised by its investigating committee to case examiners. The GDC’s current framework requires that, following the triage of a fitness to practise complaint about a dental professional, if that complaint falls in the GDC’s remit, it must be considered by an investigating committee. That means that a panel must be convened for every case that reaches that stage. It is anticipated that the introduction of case examiners will mean a swifter resolution of fitness to practise cases as a full investigating committee will not need to be convened for every case. Instead, allegations will be considered by two case examiners.

The faster resolution of cases will enhance public protection. It will also remove some of the stress from the procedure for all parties involved. In addition, greater consistency in decision making should be achieved because case examiners will deal with a higher volume of allegations than an investigating committee, because the committee is convened from a large pool.

I realise that the fact that case examiners will be employees of the GDC may be a cause of anxiety for some. It is important to remember that they will not be making findings of fact in respect of whether a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. They will make the decision as to whether a case needs to proceed to the adjudication stage and be considered by a practice committee.

Additionally, the GDC, in its rules and guidance, will provide that the case examiners must make decisions based on documentary evidence, which will be supplied to them in the same manner as is currently the case for the investigating committee. The case examiners will not be involved in evidence gathering. One lay case examiner and one registrant case examiner from the same part of the register as the individual whose case is being considered will consider an allegation, which will provide another safeguard to ensure fairness in the process.

Interested parties will be keen that case examiners are recruited, trained and supported in the right way. I have been assured by the GDC that case examiners will receive comprehensive and robust training. The GDC is developing a robust system of review and appraisal that will monitor and support performance and ensure appropriate decision making. The quality of the case examiners’ decisions will be underpinned by ongoing training and detailed guidance. The GDC will also introduce mechanisms for auditing decisions on a routine basis and apply lessons learnt from the audits to the guidance material.

Secondly, provision will be made to allow both the case examiners and the investigating committee, in certain cases, to address concerns about a registrant’s practice by agreeing appropriate undertakings with that registrant. This will be instead of referring them to a practice committee. Undertakings will be applied, where appropriate, at the end of the investigation stage of the fitness to practise process. The introduction of this change will mean that some cases that are currently referred to a practice committee may not need to be. This will be in instances where it is determined that the agreement of undertakings could lead to a resolution of the case in a way that is sufficient to protect patients and the public. For example, if the case involved an allegation that a registrant’s health was affecting their fitness to practise, it may be possible to agree undertakings that would address any risks posed to the public and to the registrant as a result of this health condition. This would also avoid the anxiety, time and cost incurred by referring the case for a full hearing. Rules will provide that a registrant must not be invited to comply with undertakings if there is a realistic prospect that, if the allegation were referred to a practice committee, the registrant’s name would be erased from the register.

Thirdly, the GDC will be provided with the power to make rules to provide for a review of a decision that an allegation should not be referred to the case examiners or to the investigating committee, and a review of a decision that an allegation should not be referred to a practice committee. This will not be an unfettered power. Through rules, the GDC will provide that a review can be undertaken by the registrar if it is considered that the original decision was materially flawed, or if new information has come to light which may have altered that decision and a review is in the public interest. Such a review can occur only within two years of the original decision to close the case. Allowing a review in these circumstances adds a further safeguard to the system. Providing the GDC with the power to take suitable action will improve public protection and maintain public confidence in dental regulation.

The order will also introduce a power to enable the investigating committee and the case examiners to review their determination to issue a warning. A registrant will be able to request such a review within two years of the original decision to issue the warning. At present, there is no mechanism via which a registrant who is issued with a warning can appeal this decision within the GDC. Instead, the only route of appeal open to them is to apply for judicial review. This can be costly for the registrant and the GDC and stressful for the registrant. Warnings can remain on an individual’s record for a number of years—for as long as the warning has been issued—and be accessed by patients and employers. Providing individuals with a route of appeal that does not require application for a judicial review is a fairer and more proportionate approach.

Finally, provision will be made to ensure that registrants can be referred to an interim orders committee at any time during the fitness to practise process. Currently, the legislation around when a case can be referred to an interim orders committee, at certain points in the process, is ambiguous. This amendment will remove any ambiguity and maintain public protection and confidence throughout the entire fitness to practise process. It will provide a higher level of patient protection, ensuring that those who are potentially unsafe to practise can have their registration suitably restricted while inquiries and investigations are made. In addition to enhancing patient safety and improving the fitness to practise processes for a registrant and all parties concerned, it has been identified that making these amendments will create approximately £2.5 million per annum of efficiency savings for the GDC over the next 10 years.

In summary, these proposals to reform and modernise the GDC’s fitness to practise processes will make the system more efficient and effective, benefiting patients, practitioners and the health service. They will result in improved public protection and an increase in public confidence in the General Dental Council. I commend the order to the Committee.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries]

I will answer that question, and after I do I hope the hon. Lady will tell me who funds Labour Friends of Israel. I have no idea who funds Right to Know, as I am sure Labour Members have no idea who funds a number of campaigns that support them.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

At what point will the hon. Lady move on to the substance of the amendment, rather than issues such as Israel and how Unison funds political campaigning?

[Nadine Dorries]

I absolutely will—that is why I am here—but it is important to explain the context and the background to some of misinformation that Members have received in their inboxes. This is my opportunity to correct the misinformation MPs have been fed about the amendment.

The amendment has created a divide that was not present before, including in 2008. The Guardian and The Times and the union-funded Abortion Rights have mounted a campaign against the amendment. I must say that the core Conservative vote newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and so on, have been supportive, so this chasm and the politicisation of abortion has begun as a result of the amendment and as a result of the unions and the left-wing media.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nadine Dorries]

No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once. I will give way to the hon. Lady who also acts as a Whip.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the exchanges on the Secretary of State’s statement last week made it plain that we are committed to having those discussions and working to secure a long-lasting reform. That is the only way in which such a reform can secure the necessary changes, both in law and funding, for this country.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Southern Cross crisis is causing extreme anxiety to the people who live in the homes, including the one at Hopton Mews in Armley, in my constituency. How will the Government ensure that local authorities and the Care Quality Commission have the necessary resources to oversee the transfer of homes to their new operators?

[Paul Burstow]

I shall certainly elaborate on how we are doing that in greater detail later. For some months we have been working with the landlords, the lenders and Southern Cross, and making sure that local authorities are fully prepared for any likely contingency and the CQC is ready to deal with re-registrations, should that become necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that further piece of evidence that shows why the Government have already given a commitment to ensure that there are no exemptions for the NHS from the application of our duties in respect of age discrimination, as there should be no place for age discrimination in the NHS. In addition, the work we are doing with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK is the way forward to ensure that we learn the lessons and drive up standards for the care of older people.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

My responsibility is to lead the national health service in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities and to lead the reform of adult social care that supports and protects vulnerable people.

[Rachel Reeves]

Having met families and patients who use the children’s heart unit in Leeds, I know the value of that service. Does the Secretary of State agree that asking families to travel across the country, which is the stark reality they face if the unit is closed down, puts at risk the family support that is so important to children during these difficult times, and will he pledge to do all he can to keep the heart unit open?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will have heard the reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who explained the continuing process that the joint committee of primary care trusts will undertake. In the context of her question, it is important to make it clear that the intention of the review is not to close paediatric cardiac centres. Surgery in some of the centres might cease, depending on the conclusions the committee reaches, but they will continue to provide specialist non-surgical services for local populations. The review intends to ensure that as much non-surgical care is delivered as close to children’s homes as possible through the development of local congenital heart networks.

NHS White Paper

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The simple answer is because GP commissioners want to create their own commissioning consortiums according to their own needs and local circumstances. They do not want to be saddled with the legislative structures and costs that currently bedevil primary care trusts.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

In my constituency, a local charity called Healthy Living Network Leeds is commissioned by the PCT to provide health services in the most deprived areas, including among the Traveller community. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that those community-based health services will continue, and that they will be overseen to ensure that those treatments continue in the most deprived areas?

[Mr Lansley]

The answer is that GP commissioning consortiums will have a responsibility that goes beyond their registered patient population, and that when they set out their commissioning plans, those plans will have to be agreed by the local authority. In the hon. Lady’s case, Leeds city council will have a responsibility to ensure, through its health improvement plan and through NHS commissioning, that the needs of groups such as Travellers are properly met.