Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Burns Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we have done: on my watch, there are 8,000 more nurses in our hospitals to deal with the tragedy of the legacy of poor care left behind by his party. That is what we have done. As part of that, trusts also recruited temporary staff. They have become over-dependent on them, which is why we have taken the measures we announced this morning.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T6. What measures are being taken to improve A and E departments such as that at Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford?

GP Services

Simon Burns Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg]

I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question because I do not have those figures in front of me. I am sure that if she talks to the Royal College of General Practitioners or the BMA she will be able to find all those figures. I am sure she understands that I represent one of the most deprived urban constituencies in the country and so I am going to focus on that, as I am sure she would focus on her constituency.

Let me re-emphasise a point I made earlier: whoever forms the Government after 7 May, they will have to come forward with solutions to the mounting pressure on general practice and the NHS overall. There needs to be long-term, sustainable investment in GP services in order to attract, retain and expand the number of GPs. Retention is just as important as recruitment—a point made in the comments about GPs retiring early.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. A significant amount of house building is going on and will be needed in the near future. Does he agree that to encourage people into general practice and to minimise the pressures, planning for any significant amounts of new housing should include health centres and facilities for GP practices, so as to make it easier for GP practices to be able to go to such places?

[Derek Twigg]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, if there is a large housing development or one that results in a large population increase in an area of the country, planning for that should include the need for proper GP services. Of course to do that we need more GPs—that is a crucial part of it. The other point to make, which other Members may want to raise in the debate, is that we also need good facilities and buildings, because unless we have those we are not going to attract as many people into general practice. Some facilities and buildings around the country, including some I have had in my constituency, are just not up to the job. Trying then to get new facilities or new buildings built, or passed through the NHS system, is remarkably difficult and takes years. I can give examples of that in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but we need to have more GPs to do what he suggests.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak, but I want briefly to discuss the Government’s record. Like others, I believe strongly that the Government made a major mistake in embarking on a massive reorganisation of the NHS, despite saying that they would not do so, which according to different estimates has cost between £2 billion and £3 billion. Whatever my political differences, why do I think that was such a major mistake? Well, it distracted the health service at a time when it was under massive pressure, and used up crucial resources. The massive increase in financial pressure was also building.

As a result of the creation of the clinical commissioning groups, many GPs have had to spend more time away from their surgeries. Let me just add that the CCG in Halton works very well; it is very progressive and forward thinking. It is determined to try to improve health and has worked very well in partnership with the local borough council. But the health service was distracted by the change, which cost a lot of money and took away vital time and resources that should have been put into ensuring that we had the right number of GPs and the organisation that we needed.

This Government have not done nearly enough to prevent the shortage of GPs. We are still waiting to see whether their plans will add up and create the number of new GPs that we need. I was shocked by one revelation. I would have thought that if someone wanted to decide on the number of GPs that are needed, they would have to know how many vacancies there were, but when I tabled a parliamentary question recently, I found out that the Government no longer kept a record of GP vacancies. I then asked the House of Commons Library how that could be. It told me that the survey suspension coincided with a fundamental review of data returns, which was initiated by the present Government in September 2010 in response to a commitment in the White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” to

“initiate a fundamental review of data returns, with the aim of culling returns of limited value.”

How such information on GP vacancies could be deemed as being of “limited value” is a mystery to me.

The Library has also told me that Health Education England’s work force plan indicates an estimated gap of around 3,000 full-time equivalent GPs between the number of staff in post and the forecast demand. I understand that the Government are saying that the supply and demand gap is expected to close by 2020 if an additional 3,100 new GP trainees can be found every year, but we have already heard about the problem of recruiting trainees to work in general practice.

Dr Maureen Baker, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that the threat was one element of a “shocking” wider crisis in front-line community care, with more than 1,000 GPs expected to leave the profession every year by 2022. The number of unfilled GP posts has nearly quadrupled in the past three years to 7.9% in 2013. The RCGP has estimated that we need some 8,000 more GPs in England, and 10,000 across the UK, by the end of the next Parliament in order to meet growing demand from patients.

The Government’s decision to get rid of NHS Direct and replace it with NHS 111 was short-sighted. Members do not have to take my word on that. They can just listen to the words of a GP in my constituency, who said:

“NHS 111 has been a complete disaster. Lay people/call centre staff working from a crib sheet/flow chart are creating huge demand in both primary care and A and E. Quite a bit of controversy about this in the last few days. They call for ambulances at the drop of a hat and seldom advise the patient to self-care. The callers not admitted are advised to see their GP within a few hours. The contact summaries are unintelligible.”

Those words are not mine but those of a GP: NHS 111 has caused some real concerns.

The Government have also cut GP training. The shortage of GPs is, without doubt, one reason why we are finding it harder to see a GP. It is also holding back the NHS from meeting the challenges of the future, such as providing better care outside hospital to support an ageing population. Of course the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) will remember that that was one of the key reasons why the Government introduced the Bill they did.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has stated that a future Government will raise something like £2.5 billion for a time to care fund from a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, cracking down on tax avoidance and a new levy on tobacco firms. Such investment will enable a Labour Government, by the end of the next Parliament, to provide 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 more GPs to help people stay healthy outside hospital and to tackle GP access problems.

In 1997, only half of patients could see a GP within 48 hours. The previous Labour Government rescued the NHS after years of Tory neglect. By the time we left office, 98% of patients were being seen within four hours at A and E and the vast majority of patients—80%—could get a GP appointment within 48 hours.

One of the Prime Minister’s first acts was to scrap Labour’s guarantee of getting a GP appointment in 48 hours and to cut the funding for extended opening hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I completely agree. If I manage to get through my speech, I will say a few words about that.

The way forward is for patients to take responsibility for their own health, but there is a basic education point that stands in the way. I have a minor condition that requires my blood pressure to be monitored. I do that myself at home, and then send the results remotely to the surgery. We then have a conversation about it remotely, hopefully by e-mail. It is ironic that the internet is increasingly used by the over-50s, but the view of GPs providing a public service stands in the way of, and even contradicts, the over-50s being able to use the internet to achieve that result.

[Mr Simon Burns]

Is there not also a problem with some patients using the internet to self-diagnose, as there can sometimes be unpleasantness and arguments when GPs do not agree?

[John Howell]

That risk does exist, but I am talking about a treatment regime that I have agreed with my local practice, and this is the best way of dealing with it.

I have discussed the impact of no-shows with local practices. No-shows can affect surgeries by denying appointments that are the equivalent of up to one doctor each week. We looked with patient groups at various ways of dealing with that, including a ring-back system that allows surgeries to send text messages to remind patients not to forget an appointment the following day. What is missing, though, is an ability for the patient to ring back and say, “Yes, I’m coming”, or “No, I’m not coming.” I understand that the scheme that was going to put that in place centrally has been cancelled, and I ask the Minister to look at that carefully. Some practices use no-shows positively as a potential indication of symptoms; if someone is a consistent no-show, that might be a sign of dementia or something else. When I discussed charging for no-shows with patient groups, there was great hostility to this, tempered by the admission that it was administratively impossible and raised too many issues about access to services.

The hon. Member for Halton talked about the role of GPs in planning locally. I have asked about this in my area, where a whole lot of places are going for neighbourhood plans. I fully support them in doing that. It is the first time that communities have had the ability to determine where houses will go—and, indeed, what they will look like, because there is a very important design element. When I asked GPs what role they had in the neighbourhood planning process, the answer, basically, was none at all; they had not participated in the discussions. I sent them back to have those discussions with the people putting the neighbourhood plan together. This cannot be left to the CCG to determine for GP practices; GP practices have to do it themselves. The risk is that if they do not have their wish-list regarding what is to be done, they will lose out in the allocation of community infrastructure levy money that will eventually come through.

NHS (Government Spending)

Simon Burns Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The accident and emergency situation is a barometer of a series of failures across the health and social care infrastructure. I shall certainly deal with some of those questions, as will my hon. Friends.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. My hon. Friend talked about Coventry; last Friday in my constituency in Nottingham I attended a summit with health chief executives, the local authority and others. At the A and E department at Queen’s medical centre more than one in four patients waited for more than four hours in the first few weeks in January—a totally unacceptable situation. This is not something that affects only my constituency; it affects those of all my hon. Friends, and probably even that of the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I will be happy to give way.

[Mr Burns]

I read the motion carefully. It is about the NHS and spending on it, as the hon. Gentleman has illustrated in his remarks so far. Will he explain something that puzzles me? I know that the shadow Secretary of State’s interview with Kirsty Wark on “Newsnight” last night was a car crash, but why is he not opening this debate? He has never been reticent in the past in coming forward to try to weaponise the NHS. Is it because his leader has wrapped him up in cotton wool to keep him away from the public gaze?

[Chris Leslie]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues there. He has plenty to puzzle over, and he will always be a puzzled individual. The bigger question is where is the Secretary of State for Health when we are talking about these particular issues? [Hon. Members: “There!”] There he is. He is so anonymous he just did not make any impact on me whatever. I am delighted that he has walked in. He is quite unforgettable, isn’t he?

The NHS has experienced problems not just in accident and emergency departments, as has been said, but across a series of services: missed cancer treatment targets for three successive quarters—15,000 people having to wait longer than the recommended 62 days to start their cancer treatment in the past year. It has not always been like this.

National Health Service

Simon Burns Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), although he would not expect me to agree with everything he has just said.

I listened to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) with considerable interest. One thing that struck a chord with me was when, at the beginning of his speech, he said, basically, that the NHS should not be a political football. I could not agree more. It does a great disservice to the people who work so hard—the doctors, nurses and ancillary staff—to provide health care for the citizens of this country, to see it turned into a party political football. Let me explain what I mean by a political football.

The Opposition have, of course, a democratic right to hold the Government of the day to account for their stewardship of the health service, as they do on education or anything else. Of course, every individual Member of Parliament, regardless of party, has a right to fight for the interests of their constituents with regard to health care if they feel that it is failing their constituents.

[Ian Austin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burns]

No, I will not, because I only have eight minutes.

What I decry, however, is when, in the generality, the health service is used to attack a political party, whether the Government or whatever, simply to try to score cheap party political points. That does a grave disservice to the NHS. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said, people in this country love the health service. They believe in it, free at the point of use for all those who are eligible to use it. I, like I imagine millions and millions of taxpayers, have no objection to paying our taxes to have a free health service. To appropriate the four freedoms of Franklin Roosevelt, there is a fifth freedom: the freedom from fear of a medical bill dropping on one’s mat and financially ruining one’s family.

Where I see the greatest and, to my mind, the most disgraceful attack is in the accusation, which is not new—it was being made in 1979, and, I suspect, before then, but fortunately I am a bit too young to remember exactly—that the Conservative party wants to privatise the health service. We do not and we never have done. As long as I am a politician, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is, we never will. I find it extremely aggravating and hurtful when this cheap shot is made.

One of the examples of privatisation given is the use of the private sector to improve and enhance the health care of our constituents. Let me just explain something. Over Christmas, I read an extremely good new book, which I strongly recommend to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), if he has not already come across it. “Nye”, by Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds, is the new biography of Nye Bevan. It is a fascinating book, particularly the part about when he was the Minister for Health from 1945 to July 1948 and putting together and negotiating the creation of the NHS. It sets out the arguments he had with the medical profession and others, and the compromises he had to make to establish the NHS. Many people do not realise that even to this day, as a result of those compromises, 95% of GP practices are private small businesses. I do not decry that, because they are treating patients, under the national health service, free of charge.

Historically, a lot of mental health care has been free of charge, but provided by the private sector. In the 1990s, when I was a Health Minister, I remember John Major using the private sector to bring down waiting lists and waiting times for operations. My constituents had no problem whatever with that, providing it was free and kept to the core principle of the NHS. The last Labour Government, the Blair-Brown Government, were quite happy to use the private sector providing it was benefiting NHS patients.

The shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned—albeit in passing—Chelmsford walk-in centre and suggested it was a great political scandal and the next bandwagon he was going to jump on. May I point something out to him? The walk-in centre was created from the dying embers of his stewardship of the NHS, in March 2010, to be run by a private company. I have no problem with that, if it is serving NHS patients. However, its sole purpose was to reduce pressures on A and E at the local hospital, and I am afraid it has singularly failed to do that. The use of A and E at Broomfield hospital, just down the road, has increased inexorably and, in that respect, the walk-in centre has failed.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have huge respect and affection for him, but he is arguing that NHS privatisation is a myth and that our accusation is wrong. If he does not mind, I will quote what he said during the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012:

“As NHS providers develop and begin to compete actively with other NHS providers and with private and voluntary providers, UK and EU competition laws will increasingly become applicable.”—[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2011; c. 718.]

Why, then, is it a myth that he and his Government have exposed the NHS to a greater risk of commercialisation, marketisation and, indeed, privatisation?

[Mr Burns]

First, competition was introduced on the current scale by the Blair-Brown Government, and secondly, there is nothing wrong, per se, with competition to get the best providers providing the best care for patients, so long as they keep to the sole ethos of the NHS, which is that that good care be provided free at the point of use for NHS patients. We saw that under his Government and under the Major Government, and this Government have used the private sector to ensure that patients are treated more quickly. We want them to be treated as quickly as possible, and if there is not enough capacity in the NHS, and if a private provider can provide the capacity, I see nothing wrong with that, and neither do most people in this country, if they are treated more quickly.

Returning to the walk-in centre, there were 40,000 attendances last year, 10,000 of which were by people beyond the Mid Essex CCG area. Of the remaining attendances, one third should have been self-caring or using their community pharmacy or 111, which the CCG is paying for, and another third should have been using their community pharmacy or GP, which the NHS is paying for. The CCG was therefore paying twice for the same care for the same patients, which is an utter waste of money. That money should be being used to care for more patients quicker, which is why the CCG has taken the decision it has. It is a rational decision, because the centre is failing to meet the aims it was set up for and instead ensuring that the NHS pays twice for the same patient to be treated. In place of the walk-in centre, there will now be an urgent care service at the local hospital for those people who should be going there. Sometimes, politicians have to do the right thing, regardless of political point scoring. Where it is in the interest of patients and the configuration of services, they should take the right decision, be reasonable and responsible and explain why it is the case.

In conclusion, I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in her place. I am fascinated to note that the nub of the motion is a call for an extra £2.5 billion for the NHS, which I am sure she strongly supports. What worries and concerns me—she may have a problem when it comes to voting at 7 o’clock tonight—is that the motion goes on to say that it is going to be

“funded by measures including a tax on properties worth over £2 million”.

Given the battle the hon. Lady had on the radio with a member—a right hon. Member— of her party from a southern Scottish constituency, I imagine that she is in turmoil, wondering how to justify that funding from that source.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am in no turmoil whatever. I will be walking through the Lobby with pride behind my hon. Friends. We cannot know exactly how much a mansion tax, if levied, would raise towards the national health service. What we do know is that the British people who want to save the national health service from the depredations of Government Members have to vote Labour. We have to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to become Secretary of State for Health—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need a statement; we have got the message.

[Mr Burns]

In conclusion, it is sad that the hon. Lady has completely undermined the case and the costings of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I have no doubt that when she has swallowed her pride and gone through the Lobby today, she will battle as hard as she is renowned for battling and will hit the leader of her party over the head to try to get him to see common sense and abandon this ridiculous policy that she also thinks is ridiculous.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

A and E and Ambulance Services

Simon Burns Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

First, may I thank the shadow Health Secretary for bringing this matter to the attention of the House? As a former Health Secretary, he knows that operational pressures are one of the biggest challenges facing any Health Secretary. Indeed, he had many examples of very, very poor care on his own watch and he is absolutely right to give the House a chance to hear more about our plans for winter.

The shadow Secretary of State asks whether we have a plan. It seems to me that he prepared his comments before he listened to the statement. We have put in more money than ever before. Plans were announced in June. NHS England had a press conference in which it went through the plans relating not just to the £400 million, but the extra £300 million that was agreed in September and allocated through October. That is a record amount. Let us consider what is happening in his own constituency. In Wigan borough, since 2010, because of spending that he opposed, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust has taken on 78 more doctors, 149 more nurses and 209 more clinical—[Interruption.] He says, “Does this help?” These are extra doctors and nurses on the front line, helping patients in his own constituency.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about care homes. The £3.3 million going to help his own constituents with winter pressures is to monitor the mental and physical health of patients in care homes and to help reduce the number of emergency admissions. We have a winter plan that is working in his own constituency to help improve the lot of his constituents. He needs to acknowledge that.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the publication of figures over Christmas. We have never published figures over the Christmas period because it would mean forcing NHS staff to work over Christmas, whereas, where possible, we would like them to be able to go home for Christmas, just like Members of this House. When he was Health Secretary, did he publish performance or weekly A and E figures over Christmas? He did not. He did not publish them at Christmas or Easter; he did not publish any weekly A and E figures at all, so to come to the House and call it a news blackout says to me that he is more interested in political opportunism than in care for patients.

It is disappointing that the right hon. Gentleman did not take this opportunity to disown his own leader’s instructions to weaponise the NHS. The NHS is not, and never should be, a political weapon. This is what third parties say. Dr Mann, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, whom the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, said yesterday that

“the system is under pressure but it’s working pretty well”.

The Foundation Trust Network said:

“NHS providers prepared for this Winter earlier and more fully than ever before”

and that—he should listen to this bit—the

“NHS needs support not criticism”

please. The NHS Confederation said the NHS was pulling out all the stops on urgent care and A and E, and that earlier planning and extra money were helping.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to draw comparisons. Nine out of 10 people are being seen within four hours in this country, which is a higher proportion than in any country anywhere in the world that measures A and E performance—faster than Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, yes, faster than Labour-run Wales. Eight people out of every 100 wait more than four hours in A and E in England; in Wales, that figure is 15 hours. He should concentrate on saving the NHS in Wales, rather than running it down in England, where it is doing so much better.

Finally, if the right hon. Gentleman is worried about poor care, why is he still saying it was wrong to have a public inquiry into Mid Staffs? This is what Julie Bailey, the Mid Staffs campaigner, said this week about his comments:

“It is very worrying, because if he becomes Health Secretary again at the election it is clear we would go straight back to the old days of covering up.”

The NHS is performing well under great pressure. He should commend the efforts being made by front-line staff, not undermine them by trying to turn the NHS into a political football.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford and the GP surgeries in mid-Essex on the fantastic job they are doing to look after patients in difficult circumstances because of the significant increase in the number of patients needing and accessing care? Furthermore, does he agree that it is rather demoralising for staff and sad that Labour seeks to turn the NHS into a party political football simply—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State does not need to concern himself with Opposition policy, as I think the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), on his good days, knows. The Secretary of State should focus on a brief statement of the Government’s policy, for which we will be grateful.

NHS Services (Access)

Simon Burns Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Actually, the question is: when did it become an all-private shortlist, and why did the right hon. Gentleman allow that to happen if he is now saying that the privatised running of hospitals is such a bad thing? I think that we have found him out, and he will want to correct the record and the impression that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in March 2010, when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Secretary of State, the number of bidders for Hinchingbrooke hospital—a process that took place under legislation passed by the previous Labour Government—went from five to three? Two of those bidders were private companies; the third bidder was a private company in conjunction with an NHS trust, but at a later stage as the process developed—as my right hon. Friend said—it went down to one bidder. The right hon. Gentleman said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) that there was a preferred bidder and that it was not a private company but the NHS. It was not the NHS; it was an NHS trust in conjunction with a private company.

[Mr Hunt]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because he makes it clear that, when the right hon. Member for Leigh was Health Secretary, he accepted an all-private shortlist. He will want to correct the record on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

We are here in the Chamber today in a week when we have seen health service workers on the picket lines for the first time in 30 years, and we have seen midwives out on strike for the first time in their history—we have had midwives working in the health care system in this country for 150 years, I think—yet most of the spat we have listened to up until now this afternoon has been about who bid what for Hinchingbrooke hospital and so forth. I wonder what people outside—not just people who work in the health service, but those who rely on it and do not have the option to go elsewhere, into the private sector—think about this situation.

We have a Government—if they had been a different Government, I would probably be saying the same thing—where the case for the defence we heard from the Secretary of State this morning about how well our health service is doing comes from independent experts in Washington. I have never in my 30 years in here heard someone doing that. Philadelphia lawyers are presumably the people saying that; I thought it might be a reference to Washington, County Durham, but, no, I assume it is Washington in the USA where people are saying we have got a good health service, not the British Medical Association or the royal colleges of nurses, GPs and everything else who constantly e-mail Members on both sides of this House about the state of health care in this country and the demoralisation of the staff—hence the first picket lines for 30 years. Here we have a Secretary of State who seems to think he can find somebody to defend him who is an independent expert from Washington DC. I think that it is shameful that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box and uses arguments like that.

Let me tell the Secretary of State—although he is not listening; he is engaged in other things—that everybody knew what was going to happen when this Government came to office in 2010.

[Mr Simon Burns]

rose—

[Kevin Barron]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a bit, because I may mention him, as he was a Minister at the time. This Government came to office and passed a Bill through Parliament that was going to introduce competition into the national health service and mean a massive reorganisation, and billions of pounds were going to be spent in doing that—billions of pounds that could have been spent elsewhere—and the case for the defence is, “We’ll make a billion pounds a year in this Parliament.” Well, it is not there yet, Ministers.

It was not just the reorganisation of the national health service that was mentioned. The Government also told us at the same time that they had got to make efficiency savings of 4% a year, something that the health service had never done, and something the public sector had never done. Indeed, people said at the time that the private sector had never done it either.

That is the situation we had when that Bill went through Parliament. They were warned about the consequences of that not just by politicians in the House, but by people who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee. I served on it. The Bill was stalled and came back in again. Evidence after evidence came in saying what has happened was going to happen.

We have had massive reorganisation. I just wonder if the Secretary of State—if he is prepared to listen—will tell us how many of the 4,000 NHS staff who were laid off and paid redundancy were then re-employed by the NHS, some of them on massive six-figure sums. How much did that cost the NHS? How much did that take away from mental health services or other services that our constituents rely on? None of this is in the debate at all, and Ministers all know perfectly well what the situation is.

Week after week, we hear these platitudes from Ministers. The Secretary of State said not too long ago, “When you go into hospital, you’ll get a named consultant,” but what does having a named consultant matter to most people? Are they going to work seven days a week, 24 hours a day so we can phone and say, “Can we come and see you?” No one has mentioned the latest one we have had, which I thought was wonderful—

NHS Investigations (Jimmy Savile)

Simon Burns Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I completely agree, and that is one of the big lessons. The shadow Home Secretary was absolutely right to say that this issue raises serious questions about the nature of celebrity in our society. One of the reasons that totally inexcusable things happened—such as being given the keys to Broadmoor—was that somehow on the basis of Savile’s image people made wrong assumptions about him. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the things that will change as a result of this investigation is that people will be more willing to challenge those who previously were not challenged. But there is a long way to go.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I totally agree with the Secretary of State’s belief that there should be more openness, and an increased sense of need to report concerns, but is he satisfied that, particularly with regard to NHS staff who may report concerns or whistleblowers, there is enough protection within the system to encourage more people to be more open?

[Mr Hunt]

No, I am not. That is why earlier this week we asked Sir Robert Francis to do a follow-up review to his public inquiry to determine what else needs to be done to create a culture of openness and transparency in the NHS. We have come a very long way as a society in terms of our understanding, but there is more work to be done. It is also very important, as I said in my statement—I know everyone would agree with this—that we do not undermine the brilliant work done by volunteers in hospitals and that we do not create a kind of bureaucratic morass that makes it impossible for that really important work to be done. However, I know we can do better than we are at the moment and important lessons need to be learned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Burns Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

As Simon Stevens is starting today, I think that this is a good moment to welcome him to his post. He is an outstanding individual, and I know that we all wish him well in what will be a challenging but incredibly important job.

As for the reorganisation, the official figures make it clear that it is saving more than £1 billion every year during the present Parliament—money that is being reinvested in the provision of 1,600 more nurses, 1,700 more midwives, 1,800 more health visitors and nearly 8,000 more doctors than we had under Labour. I am afraid that that shows that Labour has not learned the lessons of Mid Staffs. Labour Members still want to turn the clock back and spend all that money on administration.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that savings that have been made through greater effectiveness and efficiency, and that can be ploughed back into patient care, should be warmly welcomed? Does he not think that such action is far preferable to the bizarre suggestion by a former Labour Health Minister that people should be charged £10 a month to visit their GPs, which would compromise Nye Bevan’s founding principle of a free health service?

[Mr Hunt]

I do think that that is a bizarre suggestion. Given our ageing population, we need to make it easier rather than harder for people to see their GPs. I also think it bizarre of the Opposition to set their face against the reforms that my right hon. Friend helped to pilot through the House. Because money has gone to the front line, 800,000 more operations are being performed in the NHS year in, year out than were performed under Labour. We are putting money where it is needed, with doctors and nurses.

Care Bill [Lords]

Simon Burns Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will send the hon. Gentleman a few books about council socialism and the socialism of the grass roots.

Today’s debate is about trust, about listening to local people, and about not allowing any further powers to accrete in the Secretary of State’s hands and override local wishes. People do not trust central Government. That is not a party-political point; I think that people have been ill used over a long period by not being listened to at local level, which is why I urge Members to support the new clauses and the amendment.

Let us not denigrate organisations such as 38 Degrees which are merely expressing a view. Others may not agree with that view, but it has been expressed to me not just by 38 Degrees, but in e-mail after e-mail and letter after letter from people whose views I respect because they have gone through the same local experience as me. All that those people want is long-term stability and investment in a publicly funded and democratically accountable health service.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He said at the beginning of his remarks, and he kept to his pledge, that he was going to speak without party rancour. I, too, would like to do that because I think there is very little difference between my views on the health service and those of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). We may perhaps have a divergence of view on how to achieve what we both passionately believe in, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is the finest health service for the provision of care for all people in this country, but on the core principle of a national health service, free at the point of use for all those eligible to use it, there is not one iota of difference, despite the speech I heard from the endearing hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I almost felt I had woken up from a nightmare. Having listened to the same speech in 39 of the 40 sittings of the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, I regarded it as my good fortune that during the 40th sitting, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State was giving evidence to the Health Committee which prevented the hon. Gentleman being in our Committee.

The point I want to make is this: the national health service has from day one constantly evolved in the delivery of health care, partly because of changing medical science, partly because of changes in the diseases that people have suffered from owing to improved and enhanced preventive care, and partly because many conditions that in the past one would stay in hospital for no longer need to be treated in hospital but can be treated in a GP surgery or elsewhere. We all—politicians, medical practitioners and others—have to recognise that the NHS is constantly evolving and revolving, and we have to adjust to those changes and meet those challenges.

I passionately believe that decisions within the NHS should be taken locally. I supported the Health and Social Care Bill so strongly because it devolved powers and decision making to the people who I think are best qualified to take commissioning decisions on behalf of patients—local GPs. I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is no longer micro-managing the running of the NHS on a day-to-day basis. However much admiration I have for my right hon. Friend, or even for the shadow Secretary of State when he was in post, I do not think he is best qualified to be running the health service on a day-to-day basis.

If we are going to evolve and meet the challenges, difficult decisions will have to be taken, and politicians in particular—politicians of all political parties; this does not apply simply to Opposition Members of Parliament or to Conservative Members or to Liberal Democrats—have got to be braver. When there is any consideration of a reconfiguration to meet new challenges or address problems, the knee-jerk reaction is to take the populist, easy route, say no and oppose for opposition’s sake, rather than look at the reasons behind any reconfiguration.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman knows I have huge regard for him and I do not disagree that change needs to be made. The question, however, is how we make that change. I remember that when the earlier Bill was going through, he repeatedly said in this House and in TV studios that the principle behind it—if it had a principle—was to put local doctors in charge. Does he think that clause 119 is consistent with the argument he made when the earlier Bill went through?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my right hon.—or, rather, the right hon. Gentleman; I nearly made a Freudian slip—for that question. I can unequivocally say to him that I believe it as strongly and firmly today as I did when I was one of the Ministers taking the Health and Social Care Bill through this House three years ago. And I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman why I believe it.

I was saying that politicians of all parties must strengthen their backbone and be prepared to look at each case of reconfiguration on its merits, and then take difficult decisions if they are in the best interests of patients. I believe that reconfigurations should initially be determined at local level—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Leigh will wait, I will get to his point. They should be determined by local commissioners in consultation with local people and with the health and wellbeing boards, which play a vital part in keeping local communities and local health interests plugged in and represented, and in ensuring the delivery of the necessary services locally.

However—this is where I get to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—there will be a few rare and exceptional circumstances in which a TSA will have to be appointed. That is what happened in the case of South London. At that time, I happened to be privy to all the discussions that led up to what was, if I remember correctly, the unprecedented decision taken by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley).

[Mr Dorrell]

My right hon. Friend is making the key point in this debate. He is describing a locally rooted, clinically led consultation process that engages the professional community as well as the local political community. It must be right that we deliver change in the health and care system in that way. The Health and Social Care Act was motivated by exactly that thought process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said. That is not what clause 119 is about, however. It covers how we should deal with the very confined circumstances in which all those processes have failed. Are we really going to say that a trust special administrator can only look at the circumstances of an institution that has been proved to be unviable? Or are we going to allow him to look outside those circumstances, in order to deliver better care for patients? That is the question the House has to decide on this evening.

[Mr Burns]

As always, my right hon. Friend anticipates what I am about to say and says it in a far more straightforward way. He is absolutely right to say that there will be exceptional circumstances; there has been one instance so far. In such circumstances, the health economy in a particular area will need to be looked at—not in isolation; that is impossible owing to the nature of patient flows and the delivery of care—in order to get to the bottom of the problem and solve it on the ground.

A number of hon. Members said that clause 119 was a vehicle for closing down hospitals or services while totally disregarding the wishes and needs of the local health economy and local people. I say to them with the greatest respect that they have—probably for genuine reasons—misunderstood the purpose of the TSA. I ask them to think again, because this is too important an issue to be politicised and used in a game of ping-pong between political parties, or groups within those parties, to try to score political points. Our sole aim must be to ensure the improvement and viability of services. Sometimes, tough decisions will have to be taken—because of changing patterns, or whatever—and in the overwhelming majority of cases, they will be taken through consultation and through the decision-making process in the local health economy.

We have been talking about the power of the TSA. I must point out, in the friendliest and gentlest way, that that power was not introduced into the health service by this Government. It was done, I think I am right in saying, by the right hon. Member for Leigh’s predecessor, and he did it for very good reasons. He accepted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), the Chair of the Select Committee, said in his intervention, that there will be rare occasions when everything else has failed and this measure of last resort must be used. It is viable and reasonable to have that power as a measure of last resort, as the previous Government obviously thought; otherwise, they would never have put it on the statute book in their legislation.

[Mr Jamie Reed]

When this was tested in the High Court, the judge said that the Government were seeking to use the powers that the right hon. Gentleman has just described for a “strained and unnatural” purpose. Does he agree with that?

[Mr Burns]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman, because I have the freedom of the Back Benches, is that I do not share that view. I was privy to the discussions that led to South London being put into special measures. That was done because there were real and significant problems to which it was impossible at a local level, within NHS London and elsewhere, to find a coherent—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh says no. He was in opposition at the time these conversations were taking place.

[Andy Burnham]

It is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman will know that when he arrived at the Department of Health in May 2010, there was a plan in place called “A Picture of Health”—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) agrees. The plan, which had been extensively debated and consulted on at local level, was to make difficult changes to the health service in south-east London. That plan was shelved because of the right hon. Gentleman’s moratorium, and precious time to make changes was therefore lost. The financial problems in those health service organisations increased because the plan was shelved, and they were left with the option of having to bring forward a more brutal administration process. Please do not rewrite history in a debate as important as this.

[Mr Burns]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very important debate. I have the benefit of having attended the meetings and having seen what was happening in South London. In one respect the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there was a moratorium. The country wanted a moratorium to start with because of some of the closures that were causing problems, and people wanted a re-examination of the situation to check that the right decisions were being taken. Work was still going on to find a solution to South London, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire reluctantly came to the conclusion that he had to take the exceptional power that was available to him.

[Jim Dowd]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burns]

No. I am about to conclude as I know the winding-up speeches have to begin.

In conclusion, this is an important power, and it is there to be used in very exceptional circumstances. It is factually incorrect and it will scare people to accuse any Government of using the power to reconfigure services. It will not be used for that. Reconfiguration will go through the correct processes and be based locally, with the local health economy and local people and with the input of organisations such as the health and wellbeing board. It would be foolish, as I think the previous Government agreed, not to have an emergency fall-back position to secure that. That is why we had the original power under Labour’s legislation, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing that power and fine-tuning it.

[Dr Poulter]

I thank all my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I shall respond to as much of what has been said as I can in the time available.

The House is being asked to consider specific changes the Government are making to the existing trust special administrator regime, which was introduced under the previous Government. I stress at the outset that the TSA regime will not be used routinely, and will only be used when all other processes at a local level to deal with the challenges of hospitals have been exhausted. The usual approach for locally led reconfigurations will remain. TSAs are for rare and extreme cases of failure. This is not a power to be used to reconfigure services routinely—we need to get that right at the outset. This is a system of last resort, and other actions will of course be taken first to address the problems of trusts in difficulty.

Children and Families Bill

Simon Burns Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

The penalty for committing the offence of selling a nicotine product to a person under 18 would be a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale—that is currently £2,500, the same penalty as applies in respect of tobacco. The Government believe it is wrong as a matter of principle to sell nicotine products to children. We have a responsibility to protect children from addiction, which is why this provision is important. I welcome the support that the e-cigarette industry and retailers have expressed for it.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I fully understand and accept what my hon. Friend has said. Do these proposals in any way affect adults who may buy e-cigarettes for people under the age of 18?

[Jane Ellison]

That is a good point, to which I will return, if my right hon. Friend will allow me. I will consider that and we will have an answer for him.