Building an NHS Fit for the Future
Debate between Richard Fuller and Liz Kendall(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to close this important debate and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) who spoke powerfully about the need to take more action to help people quit smoking and not take up smoking in the first place. As a former smoker myself, I wish to goodness that I had never ever taken it up, and I can reassure Members that a Labour Government would do everything within our power to take further action in this area.
My right hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) rightly held the Government to account for once again failing to bring forward legislation to reform the Mental Health Act 2007, despite all the serious problems that need addressing, all the promises that have already been made and the cross-party agreement that there is on the need to act.
My hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) talked about the importance of reforming social care—another area where promises have repeatedly been made and repeatedly been broken—and the real importance of giving older and disabled people more support in the community, rather than their ending up in hospital, which is worse for them and worse for taxpayers.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Ealing North (James Murray) rightly talked about the desperate need to build more affordable housing, including social housing, to tackle problems in the private rented sector, and to reform leasehold. Those are huge issues in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) talked about the terrible problems of people waiting in huge pain and distress in ambulances or on trolleys in A&E, and many hon. Members talked about the need to improve GP access and dentistry care.
Last but by no means least was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who talked about the fantastic work her council is doing to tackle health inequalities, and the need to understand that a good job is part of a healthy life, and good health is vital to getting a job.
The point that I wish to make today is that the health of our nation is critical to the health of our economy and that, after 13 years of the Conservatives, both are in a perilous state. There was nothing in the King’s Speech to address these problems or meet the scale of the challenge we face. But Labour has a plan: to improve the health of the nation; to get Britain working again; and to give our country its future back.
Ministers repeatedly attempt to claim that everything in the garden is rosy when it comes to the state of our economy and to employment, but the truth is that we are the only country in the G7 with an employment rate that still has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. The underlying reason for that is the increasing number of people out of work due to long-term sickness. Some 2.6 million people are now shut out of the labour market due to ill health, which is the highest number ever. Frankly, that is a scandal in what is still, despite all our problems, one of the richest countries in the world. Around half of this group are more than 50 years old—that is more than double that of any other age group—and musculoskeletal problems, such as bad hips, knees, backs and other joints, are the most common problem.
Many of the over-50s are also caring for elderly, sick or disabled loved ones, for which there is precious little help and support. Women are consistently more likely to be workless due to long-term sickness than men. Indeed, women account for more than two thirds of the increase that we have seen over the past decade. But the rise in worklessness due to long-term sickness is not just an issue for older people; there has been a sharp and hugely worrying increase in the number of young people not working due to ill health, predominantly driven by mental health problems—an issue that many of my colleagues have raised. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds who are workless due to ill health has doubled in the last decade, while the number of 24 to 35-year-olds has almost trebled. Those problems are even more likely for young people who lack basic qualifications and who live in parts of the country that are struggling economically, often outside our big cities in towns and rural and coastal areas.
The fact that such problems are more likely to affect certain parts of the country in the midlands and the north comes as no surprise to Opposition Members. In Conservative Britain, people are twice as likely to be out of work due to ill health if they live in one of the most deprived areas in England than if they live in the least deprived areas, with rates of economic inactivity due to long-term sickness in the north-east and midlands almost double that of London and the south-east.
That really matters to families, to our economy and to wider society. Being shut out of work because of poor health is terrible for individuals, especially during a cost of living crisis. It is bad for businesses, which need to draw on the skills and talents of all our population if they are to grow, expand and thrive. It is also bad for taxpayers, who are now paying an extra £15.7 billion a year in lost tax revenues and higher benefits bills, compared with before the pandemic. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the rise in health-related economic inactivity poses a significant risk to our fiscal sustainability, because it reduces our prospects for growth, reduces tax receipts and puts ever-increasing pressure on health and welfare spending.
Yet despite all that, we have not seen a plan from Conservative Members that is anywhere near serious enough to get Britain working again. No doubt, when he rises to speak, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will tell us about work coaches and health MOTs for the over-50s. I am not against those measures—I support them; I have met work coaches in my own jobcentre, and I know how hard they are working to try to support people back into work—but they are nowhere near big or fundamental enough to get to grips with the root causes of worklessness, or to reform the way the system runs.
Britain deserves so much better, and that is what Labour will deliver. Our top priority will be to ensure that everyone who can work does work. We believe that the benefits of work go beyond a payslip to the dignity and self-respect that good work bring. We will tear down the barriers to success, tackle the root causes of worklessness and get Britain working again.
Our long-term plan for the NHS will invest an extra £1.1 billion a year, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status to provide 2 million more appointments a year and clear the NHS backlog—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) laughs, but I say to him: if you were a woman stuck on a waiting list, waiting for help and treatment for your hips, for your knees, for your back, you would not be laughing. We will recruit 8,500 more mental health staff, with support in every school and every community to tackle mental health problems in young people early on.
But that is not all. We will transform jobcentres so that they provide personalised help and support, work in genuine partnership with local employers and services, and help people not just to get work, but to get on in their work, with all the benefits that progression from low pay brings. That is an issue that the Government’s own review said they needed to tackle, but they have completely failed to act on it.
Richard Fuller
For a shadow spokesperson, the hon. Lady is making some good points, but she has just raised the interaction of the non-dom status and the health service. As she will be aware, the General Medical Council said today how important it was that we continue to attract doctors from overseas, but many would be impacted by a change in the non-dom status. How will Labour’s policy affect our ability to recruit people from overseas for our health service?
Liz Kendall
I have spoken to many doctors who come to work in the hospitals in my constituency—
Regulatory Reform
Debate between Richard Fuller and Liz Kendall(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The draft order makes important changes, so I welcome the fact that we can debate it properly on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will forgive me if I say that the reason we are here today is to try to clear up yet another problem created by the Government’s NHS reorganisation and by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which will go down in the annals of parliamentary history as one of the worst pieces of legislation this House has ever seen.
Liz Kendall
No. I will make some progress. The hon. Gentleman may want to listen to what the Secretary of State for Health admitted in a letter to the chair of Healthwatch England on 11 August:
“The Health and Social Care Act, when it established CCGs, did not make provision for CCGs to form joint committees and other CCGs. PCTs previously had this provision in legislation and many formed joint committees to progress partnership work.
Health organisations, including CCGs, have expressed concerns about CCGs’ inability to form joint committees that are able to make binding decisions. This inability has brought many practical challenges in working together on issues that cut across boundaries, such as continuing healthcare, patient specific funding requests and service change”
across the country. I do not know whether the Minister wants to explain why the Health and Social Care Act removed that provision, as the Health Secretary admitted in the letter to Healthwatch England. Does he want to stand up? If not, I will make some progress.
The Minister was fortunate not to be on the Committee that looked at the Health and Social Care Bill twice, so he will not know that Opposition Members repeatedly warned during its passage that CCGs would often be too small to secure effective changes to services across wider areas. We have consistently made it clear that the only way we can get the big changes we need to be able to improve care for patients, including by specialising some services in regional centres and shifting others out of hospitals into the community and towards prevention, is by working in partnership across larger areas.
In principle, we support the need for collaboration and for CCGs to come together both with one another and with NHS England, particularly in wanting to commission good services across primary, secondary, community and specialist care. However, serious concerns have been raised about the draft order by local healthwatch organisations, Healthwatch England and some of the organisations that responded to the consultation, and my hon. Friends may want to raise real concerns. I will go through the concerns in some detail.
The Minister has talked about the fact that CCGs will remain autonomous, but many of them are concerned that that is not written into the draft order. Many CCGs feel that they are coming under increasing pressure from NHS England and some of its local offices. They are concerned that the draft order might take away their autonomy, forcing them into committees and decisions that they do not think are in the best interests of local people.
Adult Social Care
Debate between Richard Fuller and Liz Kendall(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I was stating the facts about the care crisis, which have been made clear not by me but by organisations representing older and disabled people, by local councils and by the NHS. It is the Government’s denial of the existence of the care crisis and their insistence that there is enough money in the system that I am seeking to correct.
As I have said, the Government have failed to recognise, let alone tackle, the care crisis, and they have failed to face up to the difficult decisions that we need for the future. Their progress report on funding merely says that the Government support the principles of Andrew Dilnot’s commission on the funding of long-term care and support. They now claim that it is only right for Dilnot’s proposals to be considered as part of the spending review. That was not their view two years ago, when they made a clear promise in their NHS White Paper to legislate on a new legal and financial framework in the current parliamentary Session. Now we have only a draft Bill to reform social care law alone. At best that means that there will be no change in funding before the next general election, and at worst it means no change at all if the Government return to power.
Liz Kendall
I want to make a little more progress.
According to yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Dilnot has said that the delay has left older and disabled people in fear and misery. He expressed serious concern about the possibility that the Government will set the cap at a far higher level than that proposed by his commission—at £75,000 or even £100,000 rather than £35,000. He also said:
“if you go beyond £50,000 it is less effective in giving reassurance to the population and ceases to be a way of helping people with lower levels of assets.”
Instead of making real progress on funding reform, the Government trumpeted proposals for a national deferred payment scheme, providing loans to cover the costs of residential care.
Liz Kendall
It was Labour Members who proposed cross-party talks, and it was Government Members who decided unilaterally to publish the progress report on which we had been trying hard to agree. The hon. Lady accuses Opposition Members of not being serious about funding reform. We are, and I will set out what we would like to happen so that those talks can proceed.
The deferred payment schemes that were announced last week already exist in some parts of the country and are currently interest-free, but according to the Government’s plans interest will be charged, which will make loans more expensive than they are now. Many councils remain utterly unclear about how they will find the money to pay for those schemes. As the Local Government Association says,
“Councils are not banks and the implication of this level of debt in an already overstretched system needs urgent attention.”
The truth is that the Government have so far ducked the care challenge, and the reasons for that are clear. First, owing to their disastrous economic policy, they are now borrowing £150 billion more than they originally planned to borrow. The Treasury has pulled the plug, and has kicked long-term care funding into the long grass.
Richard Fuller
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. As she recognises, cross-party consensus is required if we are to solve the social care problem. Care workers—the people who actually provide the care to people—do not get sufficient attention, however. One of the problems they have suffered from over many years is per-minute billing. Does she recognise that our changes to get rid of per-minute billing are worth while, and what impact does she envisage that will have on the provision of care over the long term?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I know from shadowing care home assistants in my constituency that commissioning by the minute can cause considerable problems. For instance, it does not allow the staff to meet the individual needs of those who are most desperate for help and support. As I have said, we welcome many of the proposals in the White Paper, but they need to be properly funded, and that is why I am so concerned that the issue of long-term care funding has been kicked into the long grass.
The second reason why the Government have failed on this issue is that the Health Secretary’s obsession with reorganising the NHS has been a disastrous distraction. Two years have been wasted on an unwanted and unnecessary reorganisation, when everyone should have been relentlessly focused on the key challenge of our ageing population: meeting rising demand for care at a time of unprecedented financial pressure.
The third reason is the most fundamental of all. Many Conservative Members have still not grasped the basic principle that we must collectively and universally pool the risks of facing catastrophic care costs, as we do in the NHS, in order to make things better and fairer for us all. A voluntary system that leaves it up to individuals and their families alone will not work. The only way forward is through an effective partnership between individuals and the state.