Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

I am aware of that campaign. Something that we want to see in schools across the country, including in Stoke, is the Golden Mile. I see good examples in schools in my constituency and across the country when I travel. We are interested to learn more about what Stoke has done on this subject.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What steps he is taking to ensure that homeless people are able to access healthcare and dentistry services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

NHS England has a legal duty to commission services to meet local need, which includes people who are homeless, and we are very clear that a patient should not be turned away from a GP if they cannot produce any supporting documentation. If they state that they reside within the boundaries for the practice, the GP is expected to accept the registration. The same applies for dentistry, and training is in place to remind people of their obligations.

[Stella Creasy]

Mags Drummond is a Walthamstow woman on a mission, to try to help our many rough sleepers get decent quality healthcare, but she, like me, has hit a brick wall with our local dentists and doctors. It is little wonder that one study shows that 15% of homeless people have pulled out their own teeth because they cannot get access to services. Will the Minister meet Mags and me to look at what we can do to change that and make sure that her promises are not toothless?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Very good—I commend the hon. Lady for her wit, and I agree with her. Notwithstanding our expectations of GPs and dentists in this regard, it is quite clear that homeless people do not always have access to the treatment they should have. The hon. Lady will be aware of the work that we are doing to support rough sleepers, and I would be delighted to meet her and Mags Drummond to see what insight they can provide on how we can improve services in this area.

NHS Long-Term Plan

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend asks a profoundly important question. The medical school students who are going to medical school this year will become consultants in 2031 at the earliest, so we have to make sure that we update the way people are trained for the totally different world that they will be facing in terms of technology, medical innovation and the demarcations and roles inside hospitals and community care. This is very much part of the long-term workforce plan that will be announced alongside the NHS long-term plan later this year—it is what that will be about.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I can understand why some in Government think that there is a Brexit dividend. After all, we know that the Health Secretary’s colleagues in the Home Office have been given enough money from Brexit to cover the cost of 20,000 nurses. His colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been given 14,000 nurses’ worth of money and even his colleagues in the taxman’s office have been given 11,000 nurses’ worth of money. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to betray the good will of a single doctor, nurse, cancer patient or future patient by making promises that he cannot keep, so can he tell us, once and for all, whether he personally believes that there is a Brexit dividend—yes or no?

[Mr Hunt]

I have answered this many times, and I am very happy to answer it again. Yes, we will be able to access extra funding by not paying subscriptions to Brussels once the divorce bill has been settled, and that will mean many thousands of extra nurses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

The NHS already has 34,000 nursing vacancies. Given that there has been a 97% drop in nursing applications from the EU and that studies show that nearly half of all hospital shifts include agency nurses, will the Minister at least admit that cutting the bursary scheme has been a false economy for our NHS?

[Stephen Barclay]

It is not a false economy to increase the supply of nurses, which is what the changes have done. Indeed, they form part of a wider package of measures, including “Agenda for Change”, pay rises and the return to practice scheme, which has seen 4,355 starters returning to the profession. More and more nurses are being trained, which is why we now have over 13,000 more nurses than in 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much welcome the progress that my hon. Friend has shared with the House. Many of us will also want to pay tribute to his leadership during his time at the Department in recognising the opportunity for reconfiguration that the capital would unlock and is now delivering.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. On 21 March, the Secretary of State told the House that he would look at the impact of private finance initiative deals on NHS hospital budgets. What has he done since then? How many meetings has he had about the issue? Will he commit not to use PF2 deals, given the concerns?

[Mr Hunt]

I can absolutely commit that we are very conscious of the failings of PFI when we have any discussion about NHS capital funding, including the previous question. We are very conscious of the need not to make the mistakes that saddled the NHS with £71 billion of PFI debt.

NHS Staff Pay

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend as one of the practising nurses in the House and someone who always makes sure that the voice of nursing is heard loud and proud in this place. I very much hope that the devolved Governments will follow suit with this deal, although for every additional pound per head we have put into the NHS in England, Labour in Wales has put in only 57p.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), we all know how much agency nurses cost the NHS, and the same goes for private finance initiatives. These companies are making £1 billion in profits, which is money that will not touch any of our hospital budgets, including that of my own, Whipps Cross Hospital, which has a 17% agency rate and tried to deal with its PFI debt by downgrading the pay of nurses to save money. What is the Secretary of State doing to cut the PFI bill for our hospitals and prevent them from balancing their books off the backs of hard-working staff?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that problem. We have certainly stopped doing any new PFI deals of the disastrous kind that lead to the consequences she talks about. We have given some relief to a number of hospitals in that area, but I will look again at her local hospital, because it is clearly totally unacceptable if that is happening.

 Orkambi and Cystic Fibrosis

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). I usually apply to speak in Westminster Hall rather than in the main Chamber because the waiting time tends to be shorter, but I have had to wait today because of the huge turnout, which is testament to his tenacity in securing this important debate. Many constituents have emailed us about how their condition has affected their lives. I will cut straight to the chase and say that all the people who emailed me were unanimous in their desire to see Orkambi made available on the NHS.

In all the representations I have received, whether from families who have been affected by the disease or from world class medical professionals in Hampstead and Kilburn, there is one clear message: cystic fibrosis patients do not have time to waste. I put this bluntly not because I want to state the obvious about a life-limiting condition, which has been made clear by all the contributors so far, nor to suggest that Ministers object to introducing the precision medicines that could extend life chances. I say it because it is the key message that must weigh upon all our contributions today.

I presume that most Members have received a briefing from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which does exceptional work in advocating for those suffering from the condition. I am proud to say that I have a constituent, Ffyona Dawber, who is a trustee and is passionate about this debate and patient education more broadly. Ffyona and her colleagues at the trust have told me over and over again about the possible benefits of Orkambi. They say that medicines such as Orkambi have been proven to add years to a patient’s life. They point to the fact that Orkambi has been shown to slow decline in lung function by 42% and to cut the number of infections requiring hospitalisation by 61%. As has been quoted many times, they point to the NICE appraisal of 2016 that said that Orkambi is both “important and effective”. Given that the possible benefits of Orkambi seem to be settled, it is necessary to spell out why the Government should act now and agree a sustainable solution over the cost.

It is also important to highlight the voices of those whose futures depend on the introduction of that important drug. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), who is sitting next to me, talked about how we have to speak up for residents and constituents who cannot come here and speak for themselves. Many who have the condition cannot travel to Parliament to witness the debate.

I echo the words of a resident of mine, Caroline Brown, who wrote to me about her treatment for cystic fibrosis. She told my office that she felt “well supported” by the NHS. She paid specific tribute to the doctors and nurses at the Royal Brompton Hospital on the Fulham Road, saying that

“they are utterly amazing. I have had the best care there and I cannot fault them.”

Her tribute to the staff at the Royal Brompton reflects those paid by other local residents, especially those whose children rely on the specialist cystic fibrosis centre at Great Ormond Street. For patients such as Caroline, my constituent, the debate over Orkambi is about enabling our world-leading medical community to focus their efforts more sharply on those with advanced symptoms, and for pharmaceutical companies to get on with investing in research for aspects of the condition where the breakthrough represented by Orkambi still evades us.

It will come as no surprise to anyone to learn how Caroline felt about the situation surrounding Orkambi. As expected, she was clear in her support for its immediate roll-out. She said:

“When I look to the future it would be very comforting to know that, if I was to need it, there would be medication there that would help me. I can’t bear the thought of knowing that there is something out there that could potentially save my life, and that I am not able to take that as I couldn’t afford it. Being symptom free for someone with Cystic Fibrosis would be life changing.”

She went on to underline the consensus that exists among cystic fibrosis sufferers. A lot of them cannot meet and be in the same room for the reasons outlined by other Members, but there is one benefit of social media—I stress one benefit—which is that it has enabled a network of people with cystic fibrosis to discuss and reflect upon the key debates in the community and to share the experience of their treatments. She knows that fellow patients are unanimous:

“They all agree it should 100% be made available on the NHS. It should be available to everyone that needs it...it is sad that money is getting in the way of people's health improving.”

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. May I add the voice of my six-year-old constituent? She would not benefit from Orkambi, but we must recognise that, if we do not get this right, the other treatments that might help her will be subject to similar delays. She is only six years old, but she does not need any delay. Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter is not only about Orkambi, but about how we deal with life-changing drugs and whether we understand the power of them to make such a difference?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are lots of heart-breaking stories from people who are six and even younger who share the frustrations of the people I am speaking for today.

Caroline, my constituent, was adamant that Orkambi is just one frustration that those with cystic fibrosis have over how the current range of treatments are made available. What aggravates my constituent is the fact that cystic fibrosis is the only incurable life-threatening disease where people have to pay for their prescriptions. I greatly sympathise with her view that charging patients for medication, in light of the fact that they often undertake between three to five hours of treatment a day, does not seem to square up to the rhetoric of Ministers who pledge their support for the cystic fibrosis community. As my constituent concludes, some people have to take thousands of pills over their lifetime, so paying for them makes life very difficult. Why should cystic fibrosis be an exception when people with other diseases do not have to pay?

I will close with three questions that I want the Minister to answer. Do the Government accept responsibility for the pace at which negotiations are being conducted, and will they apologise for the anxieties that patients are experiencing as a result? Secondly, what steps are Ministers taking to ensure that pharmaceutical companies will ensure that fair and responsible pricing for a deal can always be agreed when treatments are required on the NHS? Finally, will the Minister acknowledge the importance of finding a solution that guarantees we are never put in this position again for the future pipeline of treatments for cystic fibrosis and many other life-threatening conditions?

Mental Health Act: CQC Report

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

We absolutely should do that. I often think that when we are challenging each other in this place about things that are poor, we end up talking our services down, but it remains the case that the NHS is the best health service in the world, and we should always celebrate that fact. Also, the fact that we are putting mental health services under such scrutiny is in itself driving an improvement in performance, because, as we all know, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that response, the CQC says that it has seen limited or no improvement in the key concerns that it has raised in previous years. The problems are long-standing and they have been raised by the quality regulator in previous reports to Parliament. Does the Minister not understand, when she tries to tell us that sunlight is the best disinfectant, that all we are seeing in our mental health services right now is clouds?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I would say to the hon. Lady that this report represents sunlight, not clouds. It is very transparent, and these are exactly the things that I will be holding myself and NHS England to deliver to address these points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

As my right hon. Friend identifies, training is key, and another central point is GPs’ ability to signpost people to appropriate treatments and therapies, which is exactly why we are investing in specialist care.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

23. If we are talking about concerned professionals and outcomes, can we add headteachers and teachers into the mix? One from my area has written to me about a child whom she referred to CAMHS last summer term only to be told that they were 63rd on the list and faced a 14-month wait for help. That is much longer than the month-long waiting time target that the Government have set. With a shortage of child psychologists, just how are the Government going to keep kids in my constituency safe?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Lady raises exactly the point that we are trying to address through the Green Paper. We are committed to delivering on the four-week waiting time by 2020, which will make sure that we treat over 70,000 more children with mental health issues that need to be addressed. I will be quite honest: this is not where I want us to be, but that is exactly why the Government have made it a priority and we will deliver by 2020.

North-east London STP

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Changes to our national health service are being planned all over the country, which are going to have profound implications for the quality of health, the availability of both primary and secondary services and for the size and location of our hospitals. There has been justified criticism of the secrecy with which this process of producing so-called sustainability and transformation plans has been carried out. The Department of Health has produced a five year forward view and a very large number of plans. I want to focus on the north-east London sustainability and transformation plan draft, which was published on 21 October, and on the eight delivery plans supposedly to implement it.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to put on record my personal gratitude to my hon. Friend on behalf of all the residents of Walthamstow, because we know that these plans are not going to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that my hon. Friend has secured this debate today might be the only opportunity we have in Parliament to look at something that will fundamentally transform their local healthcare services.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who spends a great deal of time, as I do, campaigning with her local council to improve the NHS locally. Throughout our sub-region of north-east London, we are all concerned about what we are facing.

The King’s Fund reported in November that the speed of development of these plans means that

“patients and the public have been largely absent”

from the process and that NHS England has instructed that freedom of information requests should be “actively rejected”. Locally in north-east London a freedom of information request for the financial and working detail of the STP was rejected in November on the basis that:

“Disclosure would be likely to inhibit the ability of public authority staff…to express themselves openly...and explore extreme options…Deliberation needs to be made in a ‘safe space’ to develop ideas and to reach decisions away from external interference which may occur if there is premature public or media involvement.”

My local council, Redbridge Council, has been concerned that it has not been adequately involved in the process. It has made it clear that it will act in the interests of our local community and that Redbridge will not be signing off or endorsing the STP unless we are satisfied that it is in the interests of Redbridge residents

I understand that the STP programme boards are not required to hold meetings in public, and no agenda or minutes are published. The secrecy surrounding this process has not been helpful in building public trust and has caused suspicion within communities all over the country—I speak particularly from local experience—as to the intentions of the proposals.  In many respects what could be a reasonable response in the circumstances to the crisis we face in terms of future funding, the ageing population and other challenges to the NHS, is being undermined because of process issues. The NHS needs to learn from these experiences about how better to engage with the public and key stakeholders, including elected local representatives.

We are fortunate in Redbridge and north-east London because there are good working relationships within the NHS and local government, and there is already a model of collaborative working.  However, the problem with the STP is that it brings a top-down process into this situation and potentially undermines the joint-working that has been voluntarily established over recent years.

Redbridge along with neighbouring authorities will be strongly arguing that the developing STP governance structures should not stifle or negatively impact the local work that is happening. Redbridge and its partners in Barking and Dagenham and in Havering have over a number of years been developing cross-borough, collaborative approaches on the integration of health and social care. Redbridge is arguing that STP governance needs to ensure that this subsidiarity to the local level is taken as a model for the future, and is not undermined by the STP approach. We need to ensure democratic accountability if we are to get public buy-in, and we do not have that at present. Public engagement needs to be enhanced and improved.

The north-east London October STP draft is subtitled “transformation underpinned by system thinking and local action”. It says, however, that

“the system partners may not be able to work together collaboratively to deliver the plans.”

Today we have seen news about the reality we face in our NHS: large numbers of hospitals with dangerously high bed-occupancy levels and little or no flexibility. The CQC’s chief executive recently talked about hospitals being dangerously full. On 26 November, a leaked memo from NHS England revealed that hospitals were being banned from declaring so-called “black alerts” and told to prepare for the winter crisis by passing on scheduled surgery to private hospitals and discharging thousands of patients to get bed occupancy down from a national average of 89% to 85%. 

However, north-east London’s population is massively increasing. The report states that the population of north-east London boroughs will increase by 18% over the next 15 years—equivalent to a new city—and yet there is no plan for an additional hospital to cope with that change. In fact, page 20 of the draft policy states that building an additional hospital is “not practical or realistic.” Indeed, the situation is worse than that. Not only is there no extra hospital, there is the planned closure of the A&E at King George hospital in my constituency. The plan is to stop overnight ambulances sometime next year, with a total closure in 2019. The STP is calling for that not only because it would meet some savings and restructuring requirements, but also because there are unsustainable costs. The previous Health Secretary announced in 2011 that the A&E at King George would close in “around two years”. That has not happened because it was deemed unsafe and because there is insufficient capacity at Queen’s hospital in Romford or at Whipps Cross university hospital in Waltham Forest to cope with the increased demand.

Despite our excellent and hard-working staff, all the hospitals in north-east London are in crisis. With pressure for early discharges, but inadequate social care and community support, we have large-scale bed blocking and delayed discharges. Sick patients then get readmitted because they cannot get GP appointments due to the pressures that exist in that sector. The STP sees out-of-hospital and integrated community care as the way forward. However, Dame Julie Moore, who in 2014 chaired a commission on hospital care for frail elderly people, said:

“As much as it suits us all to have one nice neat solution to the problem of our growing, ageing population… the truth is that as a catch-all answer it is simply wishful thinking. Integrated community care is a good thing… but this can never be a substitution for hospital care.”

We still need hospitals and acute care. Plans to transform care in the community are good, but that requires a transformation of primary care, which needs resourcing. The STP projects a 30% shortfall in nurses by 2021, and we know that many GPs plan to retire over the next few years. Both are difficult issues.

Problems also exist in the potential financial situation, and one such issue is the estates strategy. The STP delivery plan highlights sites such as Goodmayes hospital, which is a large mental health hospital, and King George hospital as places where land could be sold. Contractual issues and other matters mean that that is probably an optimistic approach.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case about why we must involve the public in some incredibly difficult decisions. We know that the financial situation we are facing is particularly dire. He has just mentioned the sites at Goodmayes, but in addition Whipps Cross has a large private finance initiative debt, where it is paying out a huge amount of money. No wonder the suggestion is being made that we need £578 million to bridge the gap.

[Mike Gapes]

My hon. Friend has given the figure I was about to cite. The STP executive summary states:

“Our total financial challenge in a ‘do nothing’ scenario would be £578m by 2021. Achieving ambitious ‘business as usual’ cost improvements as we have done in the past would still leave us with a funding gap of £336m by 2021.”

Those are eye-watering figures. The claim is made that

“we have identified a range of opportunities and interventions to help reduce the gap significantly”.

However, the £240 million gap between the “business as usual” case model and the actual predicted figure requires a series of other measures, including significant funding from the sustainability and transformation fund, reductions and changes in specialised commissioning, and what is called

“potential support for excess Public Finance Initiative (PFI) costs.”

That covers Whipps Cross hospital, Queen’s hospital, Romford, and, to some extent, King George hospital. “Potential”, what a lovely word. So this is not real and it is not even planned—it is just “potential”.

These plans are based on unrealistic, heroic, Soviet-style assumptions. This is a truly Stakhanovite model of over-estimation of potential, yet the STP still proposes it can transform a deficit of £578 million in 2021 into a potential surplus of £37 million—and improve the services. That will not happen. The plans are also predicated on totally unrealistic assumptions about savings from closing the A&E services at King George hospital, and there is a lack of clarity as to when this will happen and how much we are talking about. I have been told that tens of millions would be invested in the sites at Queen’s and Whipps Cross, but I have been told that at least £75 million is needed to do that, and there is no sign of where this capital is coming from in the Department of Health. So wards are being closed in one hospital and then millions are being invested in rebuilding wards or constructing wards at other hospitals, for no real net gain.

There is also a problem about what process will be involved in this closure at King George hospital. I am conscious that I do not have limitless time, but let me say that my local Redbridge Council is very concerned about this, because King George is supposed to be transformed from an acute hospital into an urgent care centre and so the local community needs to be involved. Redbridge is requesting that it should be involved, and I note that it has recently been agreed that it will be involved on the transformation board. However, Redbridge wants an independent chair of that board, because it is important to involve a person of public trust so that there is no controversy. There needs to be a transparent, open process as we discuss the options for the future of King George hospital, so that we can challenge the business case and take account of the fact that the assumptions on which this model is based are 10 years old. They go back to the misnamed “Fit for the Future” plans of 2006. The population growth that we have had and the growth that is yet to come, the young population that we have in the area and the movement in population means we have to look at these issues with great doubt and concern.

We need to assess the implications of all those issues. As Redbridge says, it wants to know how the reconfiguration to an urgent care centre assists primary care, community health services, adult social care, public health, and public health prevention and education. An opportunity exists in the changes, but we need public engagement in those changes, and we do not have that at the moment.

There will be enormous pressure on my local council because of budget problems, and I am worried about the situation. I am glad that the STP highlights the social care challenge, but it needs to be taken seriously by the Government if we are truly to have an effective health and social care system. The statement in this House yesterday did not offer a solution to my borough. It did not answer the challenge that boroughs such as Redbridge are facing. These boroughs are already ahead of the game in the integration of health and adult social services and are working with neighbours to take up the challenge by being a pilot for the development of an accountable care system.

Yet with all that transformation, Redbridge still faces a huge social care challenge. That is made worse by a triple whammy of public sector funding reductions to local government—my borough has lost 40% of its income since 2010—chronic underfunding of adult social care by the Government and the fact that Redbridge does not get a fair funding level in the first place. There is, potentially, a major problem. We face a shortfall of about £4 million in social care and the 1% extra on council tax raises less than £1 million. The responses that we have heard from the Government in recent days have been inadequate—indeed they have been worse even than the silence from the Chancellor in the autumn statement. They offer no real solutions to the growing crisis that will impact on some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I conclude with this plea: please will the Government look at the situation in north-east London and will the Minister meet me to discuss the fact that this plan is unrealistic, incredible, unachievable and will lead to disaster?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

It is good to hear the Minister say that she wants to see local people involved in these plans. Will she therefore commit not just to a conversation but a consultation with teeth to give people confidence that the very difficult decisions that we all know have to be made about changing the NHS can be done with their consent, and not simply given to them as a fait accompli?

[Nicola Blackwood]

Perhaps if the hon. Lady lets me continue with my speech, she will hear a little more about how the process will go forward.

The geographies have been determined not by central bodies, but by what local areas have decided makes the most sense to them. In the case of the constituency of the hon. Member for Ilford South, that has involved five providers, seven CCGs and eight local authorities covering the whole of north-east London. Each area has also identified a senior leader, who has agreed to chair and lead the STP process on behalf of their peers. In north-east London it is Jane Milligan, the chief officer of Tower Hamlets CCG, who is co-ordinating the development of the plan.

I was concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about local authorities not feeling as involved as they should. It is important to emphasise that local authorities must play a role in developing these plans. Reflecting the social care needs of an area, which councils are obviously best placed to represent, will be key to the success of the NHS in the coming years, so they must be closely involved.

The plans offer the NHS an opportunity to think strategically and open up the public discussion about how we will meet the challenges facing the NHS in terms of demand and rising costs. It is inevitable that debate will become heated; it is simply a reflection of how important local NHS services are for us all. By planning across multiple organisations—both commissioners and providers—STP footprints can seek to address in an holistic way the health needs of an area and all the people within it in a way that we have never had the opportunity to have before.

We all know that the NHS faces tough choices about how we will design future services to meet rising demand, rising costs, and more chronic and complex illnesses. Choices have often previously been postponed again and again because they were too hard and because the discussions are too uncomfortable. I do not think anyone in the Chamber would think it is fair or safe for our local populations for us to keep putting them off in this way.

In north-east London, as elsewhere, that has meant having an honest conversation about the best way forward for services that are unsustainable as well as how to integrate services to give patients a clearer route through the system. All those conversations will help ensure that patients maintain access to high-quality care.

As I understand it, the north-east London October STP draft looks at these challenges in a number of different ways. The hon. Gentleman has described some of them. It also proposes embracing integrated services, from urgent and emergency care to mental health care and support as well as public health, which is important to me as the Minister for Public Health. The STP is also exploring how to improve patient outcomes through community-based care and preventive measures, which must be important if we are to manage demand. For example, the proposals include utilising initiatives to provide adequate housing in the area, and using new models of care to give health education. It also highlights three enablers for change for the area—workforce, digital enablement and infrastructure—and investigates how to improve its position with each.

I share the view of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that the public, key stakeholders and elected representatives should be closely involved in the development of STPs. With the plans now published, preparation for STP implementation must begin in the new year. Now is the time for STP leaders to reach out actively and engage patients and the wider public, and I expect nothing less. That means having frank, engaging and iterative conversations across areas, as well as some potentially difficult conversations about what the NHS could and should look like. Simon Stevens and Jim Mackey—the heads of NHS England and NHS Improvement—have written an open letter to STP leaders making that expectation absolutely clear. The letter reiterated that now is the time for local engagement to help develop the proposals and for those involved to make it clear that these plans must have a real benefit to patients.

I should also be clear that, nationally, all reconfigurations must meet the four tests mandated by the Government to NHS England in 2010, which require all local reconfiguration plans to demonstrate support from GP commissioners, strong public and patient engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base, and support for patient choice. We would not expect any proposal to move forward that has not met all four tests. Patients must be at the heart of the NHS, and no plan can be successful unless they are fully engaged.

I close by saying that the hon. Gentleman has raised some very serious questions around details of his local STP plan and the quality of public consultation. I will ask the Minister responsible for community health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—to meet him and the hon. Lady to discuss the details to ensure that they are properly ironed out and that the public consultation and discussion are of the highest possible quality.

Question put and agreed to.

Leaving the EU: NHS Funding

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. This is such an important point for our economy, as we know in my part of London, where the Barts trust has the largest predicted overspend in NHS history. Does he agree that it is vital that those who campaigned on the pledge that this money would be provided are held to account, because communities such as mine are suffering without investment in the NHS?

[Mr Umunna]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. When I had the pleasure of visiting her constituency the other week, I saw for myself the situation that she describes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

The right hon. Lady pre-empts what I am about to say; I shall come on to that precise point.

To be clear, I want the Minister, on behalf of his Department, to give the same commitment that we are asking the Treasury to make, and to outline how his Department will make good on this pledge. I shall explain why this is a pledge that the Government should deliver. The Minister might give a number of reasons, perhaps echoing the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), to explain why the promise given by his ministerial colleagues during the referendum should not be treated as such. I will deal with each of the main possible reasons in turn.

First, there are those who claim that this was not a pledge at all. Nigel Farage, the interim leader of the UK Independence party, said that it was one of the mistakes that he thought the leave campaign made. The current Transport Secretary, who was also a member of the Government at the time of the referendum, has said that Vote Leave’s specific proposal was, in fact, to spend £100 million a week of the £350 million for the NHS that was originally hoped for, commenting that that would be an “aspiration” to be met. Let me tell the Transport Secretary that the poster that the Vote Leave supporters all stood next to did not say that this was an “aspiration”; it was a pledge—pure and simple. There was no qualification on the poster or on the big red bus. This statement was made, and the people who made it should be held to account for it.

Secondly, many leave campaigners deny ever using the £350 million figure. One of them said:

“I always referred to Britain’s net contribution of nearly £10 billion—some £200 million a week…rather than £350 million.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 20WH.]

It is true—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) touched on this—that the Office for National Statistics said that the £350 million figure was misleading, but the head of the Vote Leave campaign said:

“the £350 million figure is correct and we stand by it.”

Vote Leave, whose banner Government Ministers campaigned under, carried on citing the figure, as my hon. Friend said, and those Ministers must now be held to account.

[Stella Creasy]

I take my lead from the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who sadly does not appear to be in this Chamber. He was one of the most prominent members of the Vote Leave campaign and said that Brexit must give the NHS a boost. In my part of town, a boost to the NHS is the vital funding that we need to get our NHS back on track. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip about that point?

[Mr Umunna]

I shall come on to him shortly.

A further thing that is said—again, I think this has been touched on—is that not all the people who made these pledges were members of the then Conservative Government. Perhaps that could be said of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Well, of the five current members of the Cabinet whom I mentioned, three were members of the then Government and one—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—attended the political Cabinet at the time. Yes, the Secretary of State for International Trade was sitting on the Back Benches, but countless other Ministers from outside the Cabinet at the time who are now serving more than make up for that—for instance, the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and for Stockton South (James Wharton). I could go on. Those are just a few of the people who posed by those posters and next to that big red bus, and they must be held to account.

Finally, it is said—this is the crux of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe—that the commitment was given by one side in a referendum campaign, not by a Government. I am sorry but that simply will not wash. Many of those people were put up to appear in the media and to campaign on Vote Leave’s behalf precisely because they carried the authority that attaches to Government Ministers. That was why they were used. That was why they were asked to stand by that red bus, and to stand by those posters.

All those key Vote Leave campaigners, whether they were Ministers or not, were Members of this House. If our democracy is to mean anything, it must mean that Members are answerable to the electorate for their policies, and held to account in the House for the things that they say. People cannot go around the country casually promising the world and betraying people by failing to deliver, but then expect to get away with it. We will not forget; we will not let up. It was in the name of parliamentary sovereignty that those Ministers campaigned, and it is time that the House, on behalf of the people whom we are elected to represent, took back control, if we want to use that phrase, and made those Ministers answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on securing the debate, and on the points that he made. Like him, I voted and campaigned for the remain side, and, like him, I accept the result. I am now part of a Government who are responsible for delivering what was democratically decided by the British people. I should say at the outset, however, that I am speaking today for the Government and not for the leave campaign. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he is taking part in the wrong debate, I apologise for that in advance.

I will, however, address some of the points that have been made about the impact of Brexit on the NHS, because valid points were made about staff morale, the level of funding and the exchange rate. All those are variables, and I think it is good for us to spend a bit of time talking about them this evening. I will also talk about what stage I think we have reached on the pledge and the amount of money that we will no longer be giving to the European Union when we leave—although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that depends on how we leave, and on the nature of the agreement that we eventually reach.

Let us begin by agreeing on one point. The single most important thing that the NHS needs to be properly funded is a strong economy. To the extent that Brexit may have positives and negatives, that fact is relevant, but the NHS is properly funded at the moment. We have heard some stuff about budgets and all the rest of it, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the OECD’s analysis of health and social care spending in every OECD country shows that we are now above average, although that has not always been the case. We are possibly 1% lower than the best of class, including France and Germany. That figure was for 2014, and the gap is likely to have been filled because this year we gave an increase to NHS spending of three times the rate of inflation and we have pledged that NHS England’s budget will increase in real terms by £10 billion between now and 2021. I do not believe Brexit will make any difference to that; indeed it is a commitment and priority of this Government that it will not.

We do know, however, that there are issues in how that money is allocated within the NHS. We are broadly at the average point of the OECD, and we do and could spend that money more efficiently and effectively. We could spend more on primary care, cancer and mental health than we do, and those are Government priorities, and we hope the sustainability and transformation plan process will help to deliver that because at the moment we spend too much on acute care.

Of course we can find efficiencies, too. Agency staffing is too high and we need to address that. There is a lot we can do on procurement—Carter and new care models and all that go with that.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister could also work to renegotiate the private finance initiative loans that are crippling our NHS, and not use PF2 to do that. In order to do that, we need money in the NHS to be able to renegotiate. Surely the £350 million would help get us to that place; it would help us to renegotiate our debt, get our constituents back into work and get our NHS fit for purpose in the 21st century?

[David Mowat]

Nobody in this House would be more pleased than me if we did not have the PFI millstone around our neck. The hon. Lady talks of renegotiation; this is real money, and these are real contracts that were signed more or less entirely by the last Labour Government. There is no magic wand that enables us just to set those PFI contracts aside, although I wish there was; that is not how the commercial world works.

Junior Doctors Contracts

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

As ever, my hon. Friend speaks very constructively on this issue. She is absolutely right to say that the departments at most risk are emergency departments, maternity departments and intensive care units. Those are the areas that we are most keen to ensure will maintain critical doctor cover over the two strike days that are planned. I really hope that the BMA will co-operate with NHS England as we identify where we think the gaps might be. We will share that information with the BMA and I hope very much that it will help us to plug those gaps with junior doctors, because in the end no one wants there to be any kind of tragedy. We all have a responsibility to work to ensure that that happens.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that, when it comes to a medical diagnosis, words and clarity matter. The same applies to us as politicians. He has said today that he is imposing a contract, in contrast with what his legal team are saying to the doctors. For the avoidance of doubt, will he set out explicitly what legal powers he thinks he has to do that?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very happy to do so. We are introducing a new contract from this August, and it will be for all junior doctors. It will go progressively through the different ranks of junior doctors and, over the course of the next year, the vast majority of new doctors will move on to the new contracts. The reason that we did not use the word “impose” in the original statement was not a matter of semantics. We are proceeding with this new contract and everyone will move on to it, which is the gist of what most people mean by this. What we are not doing is changing existing contracts, so when people move trust or move to a new position, they will move on to a new contract. That is why we have used the term “introduction” of new contracts. However, it would have been much better if the introduction of the new contracts had been done through a negotiated process. That is why we took such trouble: we went to 75 meetings and made 73 different concessions in order to try to do this on a negotiated basis. Very regrettably, that proved not to be possible, which is why we took the difficult decision to proceed with these new contracts anyway.