NHS Pay Review Recommendations: England
Wes Streeting Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today I am accepting the recommendations of the NHS Pay Review Body, the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration and the Senior Salaries Review Body. This means that 1.5 million NHS staff in England will receive a significant pay rise backdated to 1 April 2024. For staff directly employed by NHS providers, this will be funded by NHS England through system allocations.
I am grateful to all the chairs and members of the NHSPRB, the DDRB and the SSRB for their reports that recognise the vital contribution that NHS staff and leadership make to our country. I am accepting their pay recommendations in full, re-committing to financial prudence and fair uplifts for public servants.
The NHSPRB recommended a 5.5% increase to all Agenda for Change staff, alongside other recommendations for a funded envelope for structural reform. In accepting these recommendations, we have committed to:
Uplifting all pay points for AfC staff (c.1.3m staff) by 5.5% on a consolidated basis, taking effect from 1 April 2024.
Adding intermediate pay points at AfC Bands 8a and above.
Working with the NHS Staff Council to take forward the PRB's recommendations on AfC pay structures.
Recognising the role of the NHS Staff Council, we are accepting the second recommendation regarding the addition of intermediate pay points to bands 8a and above in principle but are asking the NHS Staff Council to ratify it before it is implemented. We want to work with the NHS Staff Council on issues with the AfC pay structure, so we will work with stakeholders on the third recommendation.
The DDRB recommended a 6% increase to salary scales, pay ranges and the pay elements of contracts from 1 April 2024. It also recommended that an extra £1,000 be added to the pay points for doctors and dentists in training. In accepting these recommendations, we have committed to:
uplifting pay points for doctors and dentists in training (c. 73,000 doctors) by 6% plus £1,000 on a consolidated basis (an average of around 8.2% increase in pay);
uplifting the salaries of consultants (c.61,000 doctors) by 6% on a consolidated basis;
uplifting the pay range for salaried General Medical Practitioners (c.15,000 doctors) by 6% and uplifting the pay element of the GP contract by 6% on a consolidated basis (an increase of 4% on top of the 2% interim uplift in April);
uplifting the pay element of the General Dental Practitioners contract (c.24,000 dentists) and the minimum and maximum pay scale for salaried dentists by 6% on a consolidated basis;
uplifting the pay scales of specialist and associate specialist (SAS) doctors on all contracts by 6% on a consolidated basis.
The SSRB recommended an increase of 5% for all executive and senior managers and all very senior managers in the NHS in England from 1 April 2024, which we have accepted. The Government are still considering its approach to the recommendation to have a four-week turnaround on pay cases for VSMs and ESMs and so cannot confirm acceptance at this time.
These recommended uplifts are broadly in line with private sector earnings growth.
The previous Government neglected public sector pay for 14 years, and now we are resetting our relationship with public sector workforces. We will take further steps to restore confidence in the pay-setting process. We are accepting those recommendations, and will reform those public services, to deliver our missions.
The reports of the DDRB, the NHSPRB and the SSRB will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS40]
Doctors and Dentists in Training: Pay Offer
Wes Streeting Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that today I have made a formal offer on pay for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years to the British Medical Association’s Junior Doctors Committee for doctors and dentists in training in England. The BMA, which represents these staff and other unions in negotiations, will recommend the offer to their members.
I am pleased to have been able to make this offer fewer than four weeks after becoming the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I said during the general election campaign that I would get around the table with unions and find a way to resolve industrial action. This is a promise made, and a promise kept.
Under the offer, doctors and dentists in foundation and specialty training will receive:
an average investment of 4.05% into 2023-24 pay scales effective from 1 April 2023, with a payment to reflect backpay; and
a further consolidated uplift of 6% + £1,000 in 2024-25, in line with the recommendations of the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration (DDRB).
If accepted this will mean an average pay uplift of 22.3% in basic pay for doctors and dentists in training over the past two years.
The Government will instruct the DDRB to change the approach they take when considering pay for doctors and dentists in training from 2025-26.
The Government have also committed to improving the current exception reporting process and to working in partnership with the BMA and other health organisations to reform the current system of training and rotational placements.
This offer would increase the base salary for a full-time doctor starting foundation training in the NHS to over £36,600 compared to around £32,400 before this offer was made. A full-time doctor entering specialty training would see their basic pay rise to over £49,900 from around £43,900 before this offer was made.
If this offer is accepted, the BMA will withdraw the rate card for doctors and dentists in training in England with immediate effect, and the current trade dispute with doctors and dentists in training will end.
The BMA will now begin the process of consulting their members on the offer. The BMA JDC and its officers will recommend that members accept this deal, and I strongly encourage members to do so. I will update the House on this matter in due course.
From September, I will refer to this group of doctors as resident doctors. This is the preferred nomenclature of the BMA, and an important sign of a new collaborative relationship between the medical profession and the Government based on a firm foundation of mutual respect.
Separately, I want to inform the House that this Government will also honour the offer made by the previous Government to the BMA Specialists, Associate Specialists, and Specialty Committee for SAS doctors. The BMA’s SAS members voted to accept the offer during the pre-election period.
These commitments come alongside the publication of the pay review body reports, on which I have updated the House separately.
[HCWS41]
Care Quality Commission
Wes Streeting Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today I wish to update the House on the publication of the interim findings of the review into the operational effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission that is being conducted by Dr Penny Dash. I have asked Dr Dash to publish these interim findings, as I wish to share with the House and the public the serious failings they expose.
Getting regulation right is critical to ensuring that health and social care is not only safe but also high quality. If the way we regulate is not fit for purpose, it means that people are not properly supported in their choices about health and care, and there is a lost opportunity to deliver improvements. Dr Dash’s interim findings demonstrate that the CQC, as the regulator of health and social care in England, is exactly that: not fit for purpose.
Dr Dash’s report has given people across the health and social care system, including from within the CQC, the opportunity to speak up about what I believe are systemic and cultural problems. I commend the report for creating an environment in which people have been able to speak up; to fix the NHS we must create a culture that values and listens to the voices of those who can see where the problems are.
Dr Dash has heard major concerns from significant groups of stakeholders. There are failings in the way that the CQC assesses organisations relating to the single assessment framework, which means that we cannot be confident that inspections are looking at all the things the public should rightly expect. There are also concerns about how ratings, which both the public and service providers depend on, are calculated. These failings are compounded by a further finding that the CQC does not have appropriate sector-level expertise throughout the organisation. Dr Dash is clear that all of these concerns mean that the CQC has lost credibility.
As recommended by Dr Dash, the Department of Health and Social Care will work with the board of the CQC to address the issues raised. The board will have my full support in ensuring the right leadership is in place to drive through the changes that are needed.
While this is an interim report, I would like to highlight four immediate steps that I will be taking with the CQC.
First, the CQC have asked Professor Sir Mike Richards to review the single assessment framework. This is an important step in addressing the concerns Dr Dash raises about how the safety and quality of hospitals is assessed. Sir Mike is an eminent and highly regarded clinician who was the CQC’s first chief inspector of hospitals. The fact that the CQC has asked someone with Sir Mike’s significant experience to give detailed and thorough consideration to improving the framework shows that the CQC is now taking seriously the concerns raised in the report and is acting swiftly to address them.
Second, I have asked the CQC to urgently improve the transparency of its ratings. This will include being clearer about what evidence has been considered in reaching the ratings, as well as setting out clearly the dates of the inspections that a rating is based on. This is to address the report’s finding about the historical practice of combining inspections over several years to produce a rating. This is important so that members of the public can have confidence that they know what a rating actually means. The action I am taking is a first step to bring in greater transparency, but more work will be required as the CQC looks in more detail at its assessment framework.
Third, the Department of Health and Social Care will increase the level of oversight of the CQC, including the frequency and seniority of that oversight. Over the summer, I will be looking at what is needed to ensure that the recommendations in the interim review are acted upon. This arrangement will continue once the final report is published. Ultimately, the Department’s objective must be to ensure that improvements in the delivery of CQC’s core functions are achieved for service users and service providers across health and social care. I have requested firm assurance from the chair that effective and credible appointments are made for a permanent chief executive and chief inspectorate of healthcare.
Fourth, the CQC sits within a complex landscape of bodies with responsibility for safety. Pending completion of her final report in autumn 2024, I am asking Dr Dash to undertake further work and make recommendations on how we can maximise the effectiveness of key bodies, individually and collectively, within that landscape. Terms of reference will be determined in due course.
Only by ensuring that we have a health and social care system that works as a whole will we be able to restore the public’s confidence in the safety and quality of care and, most importantly, put the voice and experience of patients and service users back at the heart of our regulation and oversight of the whole health and social care system.
The interim findings of the review have been published on gov.uk. I will provide a further update to the House once Dr Dash’s final report has been published.
[HCWS27]
Oral Answers to Questions
Wes Streeting Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
First, may I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) to the House, and say what an absolute privilege it is to have been appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? We have our work cut out for us, with not only the worst economic inheritance since 1945, for which the Conservatives should show more humility, but the worst crisis in the history of our national health service, which we see reflected particularly in NHS dentistry. Some 13 million people in England have unmet need for NHS dentistry, or 28% of the country, and it is disgraceful that rotting teeth are the most common reason for children aged between five and nine being admitted to hospital. During the general election campaign, I pledged to meet the British Dental Association immediately to start conversations on contract reform, and I did exactly that. I look forward to working with dentists and others from across the sector to reform the dental contract and rebuild NHS dentistry.
Alice Macdonald
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. Norfolk is a dental desert and my constituents are suffering. As well as reforming the contract, we need to train more dentists. In the east of England we do not have a dental school, but the University of East Anglia has put forward proposals for one. Will he meet me, other hon. Members from Norfolk and representatives from the University of East Anglia to discuss this important proposal?
Wes Streeting
It is appalling that Norfolk and Waveney are so poorly served in terms of dentistry. There are only 36 dentists per 100,000 people, compared with the national average of 53, so when my hon. Friend says that her community is a dental desert, Members should know that it is the Sahara of dental deserts. We will work with partners to ensure that patients across the country can access a dentist when they need one. I am aware, not least thanks to her advocacy and the advocacy of other Labour MPs across Norfolk, of the University of East Anglia’s proposal, and I would be delighted to meet her and my colleagues.
Lewis Atkinson
My constituents in Sunderland Central tell me that NHS dentistry is broken. It is not just that they cannot access routine care, but that if they are struck with, for example, excruciating toothache, they cannot access urgent appointments either. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking, alongside the welcome reform of the dental contract, to ensure that urgent dental services are available locally in places such as Sunderland.
Wes Streeting
I welcome my hon. Friend; he certainly has big shoes to fill in Sunderland Central and is a worthy successor to his predecessor. He is absolutely right that alongside contract reform we need urgent action. That is why we committed to providing 700,000 additional urgent appointments and recruiting dentists to where they are most needed, and I am delighted to report that dentists stand ready to assist. We are working with the BDA urgently to get those appointments up and running as soon as possible, and we will keep the House informed on progress as we do.
Jon Pearce
High Peak is also a dental desert. We spoke to one practice that said it got as many calls for registrations as it did for appointments. Often those calls are deeply distressing, with elderly people unable to eat because they need their dentures sorted. What first steps is the Secretary of State able to take to cure 14 years of Conservative failure in NHS dentistry?
Wes Streeting
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He is absolutely right to point out that these challenges have been 14 years in the making, and it will take time to fix the damage that the Conservatives have done to our national health service. We will start with 700,000 urgent appointments, as we promised, and we will continue with contract reform, which is essential. I reassure him that as we do, we will have the needs of all communities in our country at heart, especially rural communities such as his that have particular challenges. I look forward to involving him and keeping him up to date on progress as we make it.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The NHS dental recovery plan was launched earlier this year, and the Secretary of State has on his desk news about the impact that it is having. Could he share with the House how much the plan has increased appointments in the Worcestershire and Herefordshire integrated care board area?
Wes Streeting
The Conservative party lauded that plan during the general election, when I think the public delivered their verdict on the progress that it had made. NHS dentistry is non-existent in huge parts of the country. We will stick with some aspects of the previous Government’s dental recovery plan because they are the right solutions, but there are gimmicks that we will not proceed with. We will come forward with a serious plan to reform the dental contract, which the Conservatives committed to in 2010 but failed to do in every single year of their 14 years.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have a constituent who has been trying to get a dentist appointment for a year. They have painful abscesses, cannot sleep and cannot eat using the right side of their mouth. We need to get on with this. I note that a review of the NHS has been launched, but the British Dental Association is concerned that that review will delay the changes to NHS dentistry that are so desperately needed. Will the Secretary of State give us a timeline for when we will see change?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question and congratulate her on her re-election to the House. She is right to point to the detrimental impact that the Conservatives’ failure is having on people’s lives. In fact, in 1948, when the national health service was founded, Nye Bevan received a letter from a woman who had worked her entire life in the Lancashire cotton mills about how the dentistry she was given by the national health service had given her dignity and the freedom to associate in any company. What a tragedy that 76 years later, the Conservative party has squandered and destroyed that legacy to the point where people are suffering not just pain and agony, but the indignity of being unable to find a job and unable to socialise in polite company because they are ashamed of the state of their rotting teeth.
The hon. Member is absolutely right: Lord Darzi is conducting a review on the state of the NHS, and it will report in September. That is not preventing us from making progress, talking to the BDA and working within the Department and across the sector to get those 700,000 appointments up and running as a matter of urgency. I look forward to reporting the progress to her and other right hon. and hon. Members.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a particular shortage of NHS dentists in coastal and rural communities such as mine on the Isle of Wight. Will he therefore commit to the previous Government’s plan for 240 golden hellos for newly qualified dentists by the end of the year to address that issue?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Member to the House—it is a rare thing to welcome new Conservative Members, and he is welcome. He is absolutely right to touch on the workforce issues in NHS dentistry, and to say that we need to incentivise dentists, on two fronts: we need them to commit to and do more work in the NHS—we are looking at a range of things in that regard—and we need to ensure that we get more dentists to the areas in which they are most needed. We will certainly support incentives to that effect.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Member and his new team to their places in the Department. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), prioritised access to care, including NHS dentistry, when she was Secretary of State. The dental recovery plan that she launched announced new dental vans to provide access to care to our most rural communities and coastal communities in England. We had agreed with NHS England that the first vans would be on the road by this autumn, and I know that that timescale was welcomed by colleagues across the House. Will he confirm that dental vans will be on the road by this autumn?
Wes Streeting
I could not have picked a better example of the previous Government’s desperately low ceiling of ambition than the fact that, after 14 years, they laud their triumph of dental vans roaming the country in the absence of actual dentists and dental surgeries. What an absolute disgrace. I accept that the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was just the last in a very long list of Health and Social Care Secretaries who had the chance to fix the problems. It was not all on her, and it is important that I say that—not least because of the Conservative leadership election that will be taking place soon.
I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), on his appointment, but he sat behind Secretaries of State as their Parliamentary Private Secretary year after year, week after week, looking at the utterly abysmal failure of their record. When it comes to criticising this Government on the actions that we will take, the Conservatives do not have a leg to stand on.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
It is painfully clear that the previous Government’s new hospital programme—they said that they would deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030—is not deliverable in that timeframe. I want to see the new hospital programme completed, but I am not prepared to offer people false hope about how soon they will benefit from the facilities they deserve. That is why I have asked officials as a matter of urgency to report to me on the degree to which the programme is funded along with a realistic timetable for delivery. We will not play fast and loose with the public finances, nor will we play fast and loose with people’s trust as the previous Government did.
Cat Smith
Lancaster’s royal infirmary is at capacity. It is a Victorian hospital, and I am sure it was cutting-edge back then, but it is now not fit for purpose. Yesterday, the joint investment strategic committee expressed its support for the new build scheme in Lancaster, so it will soon be on the Secretary of State’s desk. Will my right hon. Friend commit to meeting me and other interested local MPs in north Lancashire to ensure that, after 14 years of chaos under the Conservatives, the Labour Government will deliver a new hospital for Lancaster?
Wes Streeting
I was about to say, Mr Speaker, that the good people of Lancaster and Wyre will be delighted to have sent my hon. Friend to Parliament, because she is second only to you in collaring me about a local hospital project—you are the holder of that record. There is a serious point: thanks to her determined efforts to collar me around the parliamentary estate, I know the particular urgency around land. A scheme will be put to me shortly, which I will consider carefully, and I will look at the programme in the round and ensure that I am able to come back to this House and to the country with promises that we can keep and that the country can afford.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
During the general election campaign, Labour said it was
“committed to delivering the new hospitals programme, including modernising the QEH at Kings Lynn to address its potentially dangerous RAAC”.
Will the Secretary of State honour that pledge, which was made to my constituents and to the staff at QEH, and approve the business case submitted by the trust for the new multi-storey car park, which is a key enabling project for the new hospital that we need by 2030?
Wes Streeting
Hospitals with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete are at the top of my list of priorities. I am extremely concerned about the dire state of the NHS estate. Once again, I think that is a bit rich from Opposition Members, whose party was in government only weeks ago. They had a Prime Minister local to that hospital, and they did not do anything when they had the chance, but they should not worry—we will clean up their mess.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his position. I should declare that I have been working in the NHS for 23 years, currently as an NHS consultant paediatrician. I look forward to using that experience in my new role as shadow Minister of State to scrutinise the Government constructively.
Under the new hospital programme, the previous Government had already opened six hospitals to patients, with two more due to open this financial year and 18 under construction. The Government are now putting that at risk by launching a review of that work, delaying those projects, which are vital to patients across the country. Could the right hon. Member please confirm when the review will be completed?
Wes Streeting
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post. I must say I preferred her much more as a Back-Bench rebel than a Front-Bench spokesperson, but I have enormous respect for her years of contribution to the NHS and the experience that she brings to this House. I always take her seriously.
However, on this one, once again I say to the Opposition that they handed over an entirely fictional timetable and an unfunded programme. The hon. Lady might not know because she was not there immediately prior to the election, but the shadow Secretary of State, who is sitting right next to her, knows exactly where the bodies are buried in the Department, where the unexploded bombs are, and exactly the degree to which this timetable and the funding were not as set out by the previous Government.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their roles, but let me gently warn him that if he intends to run a contest on which Member can harangue him the most on crumbling hospitals, our 72 Liberal Democrat MPs say, “Challenge accepted.”
Under the Conservatives, the new hospital programme ground to a halt. We know the terrible stories of nurses running bucket rotas and all the rest. We have the worst of all worlds at the moment: trusts such as mine in west Hertfordshire are champing at the bit to get going but cannot, and are being held back. Other trusts have capital funds that they want to spend but are not allowed to because of outdated rules, and there are industry concerns that the one, top-down, centralised approach of the Conservatives could decimate competition in that industry, when we need a thriving industry to rebuild our hospitals and primary care. What is the Secretary of State’s response to that approach?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Lady back to her place. We worked constructively on the Opposition Benches together and, regardless of the size of the Government’s majority, we intend to work constructively with her on this side of the election, too. By extension, I congratulate her colleagues on their election. I have discovered that I have 72 new pen pals, all sitting there on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and they have been writing to me about a whole manner of projects. My colleagues and I will get back to them.
The hon. Lady is right that this is not just about the new hospitals programme, important though that is; the condition of the whole NHS estate is poor. In fact, backlog maintenance, the direct cost of bringing the estate into compliance with mandatory fire safety requirements and statutory safety legislation, currently stands at £11.6 billion. That is the legacy of the last Conservative Government.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Our NHS is broken. This Government have been honest about the problems we face because we are serious about fixing them, and we have not wasted a moment. We have appointed Lord Darzi to carry out an independent investigation of the state of our NHS, we are resetting the relationship with junior doctors with negotiations starting today, and we are laying the foundations for the delivery of 40,000 more appointments a week to cut waiting lists. The Gracious Speech kick-started a decade of national renewal, with modernisation of the Mental Health Act as well as the smoking reform, which will ensure that this generation of young people is the first smoke-free generation, and will be the first step towards ensuring that that generation is the healthiest in history.
Carolyn Harris
During their free NHS 40-plus health checks, women are assessed for conditions that may affect them as they grow older, but menopause is not included. To include it would be cost-neutral and would not only help millions of women to recognise the symptoms, but prevent needless GP appointments when those symptoms start to develop. Along with Menopause Mandate, I have been campaigning tirelessly on this issue. Will the Secretary of State please look into it as a matter of urgency?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend back in the House. She campaigns relentlessly on this vital issue, and it would be very risky for me to do anything other than agree to meet her, because I share her view that progress needs to be made on it.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their places, and wish them well in their endeavours? With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I should also place on the record my thanks to my superb team of former Ministers, to those in the private office and to officials in the Department for their hard work and support, as well as thanking the doctors, nurses and social care and health professionals with whom I have had the pleasure of working.
Now, to business. In opposition, the Secretary of State described the 35% pay rise demand by the junior doctors committee as “reasonable’. What he did not tell the public was that this single trade union demand would cost an additional £3 billion, let alone the impact on other public sector workers. Will he ask the Chancellor to raise taxes, or will she ask him to cut patient services to pay for it?
Wes Streeting
May I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her new position? She has behaved in her typically graceful and decent way. I enjoyed working with her on that basis, and will continue to do so. Although, I must confess that when I heard about the “abominable” behaviour of the shadow Health Secretary, I thought, “What on earth have I done now?” Then I remembered that our roles have swapped, and that it was not me they were referring to.
What I said was that the doctors were making a reasonable case that their pay had not kept in line with inflation, but we were clear before the election that 35% was not a figure we could afford. We are negotiating with junior doctors in good faith to agree on a settlement that we can deliver and that the country can afford.
Victoria Atkins
I am afraid I do not like it when Secretaries of State do not answer questions, and I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman gave another non-answer, as has been the case for those on the Government Front Bench. I have a question that I hope he will be able to answer. The final act of the Conservative Government was to protect children and young people by banning private clinics from selling puberty blockers to young people questioning their gender. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will resist the voices of opposition on the Benches behind him and implement in full all of Dr Cass’s recommendations, including exercising “extreme caution”, as she said, in the use of cross-sex hormones in young people? They and their parents deserve certainty from this Government.
Wes Streeting
Obviously, there is a judicial review of the former Secretary of State’s decision, which I am defending. The matter is sub judice, so I will steer clear of it.
To go back to first principles, we are wholeheartedly committed to the full implementation of the Cass review, which will deliver material improvements in the wellbeing, safety and dignity of trans people of all ages. I think that is important. I want to reassure LGBT+ communities across the country, particularly the trans community, that this Government seek a very different relationship with them. I look at the rising hate crime statistics and trans people’s struggles to access healthcare, and I look at their desire to live freely, equally and with dignity. That is what we will work with them to deliver.
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that today is a new start with Question Time, but we have to be short and speedy. That is the whole idea of oral questions, because otherwise Members are not going to get in.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Wes Streeting
I am proud that the Deputy Prime Minister will be delivering the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes. It is absolutely vital that the infrastructure needed is delivered alongside those new homes, and we and other colleagues across Government will be working very closely with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure that the social infrastructure is also provided.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I warmly welcome the hon. Member to her place. She is absolutely right to raise the plight of unpaid family carers. They are part of the team, as far as this Government are concerned, so as we set out our 10-year plan for social care as part of our ambition to build the national care service, we will make sure that unpaid family carers are very much at the centre of our thinking, in no small part thanks to her representations.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
Of all the issues that keep me awake at night, maternity safety is top of the list. We have already heard about the staffing shortages and the actions we will take to address that, but I also want to reassure people that, as we build our 10-year plan for the NHS, patient voices, including those of recent and expectant mothers, will be part of that process.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
During the election campaign the Prime Minister came to Basingstoke on a visit and specifically promised to replace Basingstoke hospital by 2030. Can we rely on that promise?
Wes Streeting
I would not rely on anything the former Prime Minister said—[Interruption.] Oh, our Prime Minister? I thought the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the former Prime Minister. In that case, I can reassure him that we are absolutely committed to the new hospitals programme. On the budgets and the timescales, as I have said, we will come forward with an honest appraisal of what we have inherited from the last Government and what we will be able to deliver within reasonable timescales.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I am personally grateful to the Royal Free hospital for saving my life when I went through kidney cancer. NHS waiting lists stand at 7.6 million, which was still rising as this Government took office. Our 40,000 extra appointments, scans and procedures and our doubling of the number of diagnostic scanners will make a real difference to getting that backlog down to where it should be.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
During the general election campaign, the Health Secretary visited King’s Mill hospital in Ashfield, and I am sure that helped me to get re-elected. King’s Mill was built on a private finance initiative deal by the last Labour Government and is going to cost £3 billion for a £300 million hospital. Will the Secretary of State please now assure me and the people of Ashfield that this will never happen again?
Wes Streeting
Despite my best efforts, the hon. Gentleman is back. I congratulate him through gritted teeth.
I was very impressed by what I saw at King’s Mill hospital, and I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record of delivering the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. As I said during the election campaign, we will build on that success and learn from some of our shortcomings, too.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Better late than never, as they say.
I have been to Hillingdon hospital, which has amazing staff and appalling buildings. That is why the people of Hillingdon, and people right across the country, deserve honesty, clarity and certainty about the new hospitals programme. This Government will provide it and stick to it.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that handing over powers to the World Health Organisation, undermining the UK’s ability to make its own sovereign decisions, would be unacceptable?
Wes Streeting
The World Health Organisation is an intergovernmental arrangement. It is of vital importance that, first and foremost, we agree only to things that are in our national interest, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there are lots of things that we need to do together in pursuit of our national interest, from tackling antimicrobial resistance to preventing future pandemic threats. That is exactly what we will do.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I would be delighted to do that. As my hon. Friend knows, we visited Specsavers during the election campaign. There are lots of high street opticians, and they can make a real difference to cutting the backlog. The Conservatives should have gone to Specsavers, and this Government will.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituents have struggled to get pre-diagnosis ADHD and autism support for their young daughters. We cannot diagnose children at a very young age, but that does not mean that families do not need help. Can the Minister confirm what engagement he will have with support organisations such as the National Autistic Society to ensure that best practice means that families are not struggling for support?
NHS
Wes Streeting Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Let me start with a few points of genuine consensus. First, I associate myself and my party wholeheartedly with the right hon. Lady’s remarks about the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and the extraordinary courage and strength he has shown. I greatly welcome her reassurance to victims of the contaminated blood scandal and the emphasis she placed on the cross-party commitment to continue at pace to deliver justice, whatever the outcome of the general election. I also welcome what she said about the justifiably cautious and responsible approach she is taking in relation to puberty blockers in the light of the Cass review.
That is the end of the consensus, however, because after 14 years of Conservative incompetence, neglect and vandalism, the national health service has never been in a worse state. The Government cut 2,000 GPs and now it is impossible to get an appointment. They wasted billions of pounds on top-down reorganisations, recruitment agencies and crony contracts for useless personal protective equipment instead of training the workforce the NHS needs. They forced nurses out on strike for the first time in history; and now the Prime Minister shamelessly tries to blame them for his own failures, sending the country into an election with strike action still looming. He promised to cut waiting lists; they are up to 7.5 million. Even their claim that waiting lists have fallen in the last six months has been achieved only by excluding the community figures—fiddling the figures. He promised to build 40 new hospitals and the Government have failed to build a single one. They hold people in this country in such contempt: the Conservatives think the public are so stupid that they will fall for the same recycled soggy promise all over again. Vast swathes of the country have been left without a single NHS dentist, forcing people in Britain, in 2024, to perform DIY dentistry on themselves.
After 14 years, the fundamental promise of the NHS has been broken: people can no longer be sure the NHS will be there for them when they need it. Listening to the Prime Minister’s interviews this morning, it is clear he has given up on the NHS. He has called this election with no plan to cut waiting lists, no plan to end the strikes, and no plan to reform the service. The Conservatives have taken the NHS to breaking point; if they are given five more years, they will finish the job.
This election is the country’s chance to turn the page on 14 years of failure, to end the chaos in the NHS and to rebuild our NHS. No part of our country is crying out louder for change than our health service—not just investment but reform, because if the NHS is to be there for us free at the point of use for the next 75 years, as it has been in the last, it must change. Only Labour can deliver that change.
Our damp squib of a Prime Minister is dripping into this election with a puddle not a plan. In contrast, Labour has a plan to get our NHS back on its feet and make it fit for the future. [Interruption.] Conservative Members ask what it is: give the people what they want—40,000 extra appointments a week at evenings and weekends to cut waiting lists; double the number of scanners, with AI-enabled scanners diagnosing patients faster; 700,000 emergency dental appointments and reform of the contract to rescue NHS dentistry; double medical school places and train thousands more nurses, GPs and midwives, delivering Labour’s workforce plan; bring back the family doctor so patients can see the same GP for each appointment; 8,500 mental health professionals to treat people on time, with mental health support in every school and hubs in every community, alongside landmark reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. That is Labour’s plan, and that is just the start. More than that, unlike the Conservatives, we have a record on the NHS to be proud of: a record of the shortest waiting lists and the highest patient satisfaction in history. We did it before, and we will do it again. That is why representatives of the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland know, and even admit in private, that a Labour Government in Westminster will be a rising tide that lifts all ships across our United Kingdom.
I say to people that it is not enough to send MPs to Westminster to oppose the Conservatives; they need to send Labour MPs to replace the Conservatives. If they are given five more years, nothing will change. The chaos will continue, and the NHS crisis will get worse. As we approach this general election, be in no doubt: the only way to deliver the change our country needs is to vote Labour. I have every hope that our country will do just that.
Victoria Atkins
I know that the hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time in recent days studying that infamous pledge card. It has obviously taken up a lot of space in his brain, because he seems not to have understood that not only did we settle months ago with the consultants, so they are not on strike, but we have arrived at a settlement with the specialty and specialist doctors, which is going out to ballot. He asked about junior doctors, and he has obviously missed the news that we have just entered mediation with them. We are bringing together, with the workforce plan, the progress we are making on working conditions. The Labour party does not like conversations about mediation—no, no, no —because we all know that Labour MPs are beholden to their trade union masters and have never condemned a single strike that has affected our constituents and their access to healthcare.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the new hospital programme, and I was wondering whether he would. It is, as some might say in politics, bold. I have taken the trouble—it was a lot of trouble—to read the Labour party’s health mission. One of its pledges is that one of the first steps of a Labour Government would be to pause all capital projects in the NHS. Our constituents should be clear: the Conservatives have a new hospital programme, which we are delivering; the Labour party has a no new hospital programme.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the ideas for the NHS—ones he could not quite remember over the weekend—and the number of appointments that Labour would bring. I think it was appointments, because when he was asked to clarify whether he meant appointment or treatments, he could not define it. I hate to break it to him, but there is a difference between an appointment and, for example, a triple heart bypass. I would love to know whether he is talking about appointments or treatments. Just to help him understand the scale of NHS England’s activities on a weekly basis, it provides 575,000 out-patient appointments a week. His pledge sounds like a big number, but the truth is that it will not even touch the sides, even when Labour has worked out where the sides are.
The hon. Gentleman also bravely talks about the Cass review, and I genuinely welcome the fact that he has thrown away his long-held principles and relied on the evidence that Dr Cass provided, but I wonder whether he ought to have a conversation with his fellow shadow Cabinet members, because they announced a policy this week that is self-identification by the back door. They want to put the responsibility for self-identification and the gender recognition certificate process on the shoulders of our GPs, when we have been clear that we want our GPs focusing on the 60 million more appointments they are making in the past year. He does not understand—[Interruption.] Forgive me, he is chuntering at me, and he needs to go away and read the Gender Recognition Act 2004, because it is a panel that looks after that process, and Labour is seeking to change that to make it a single GP.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the record of the Conservative party, and we are proud of it. I am particularly proud of the fact that we have record funding under the Government for mental and physical health. I wonder whether he is quite so proud of the record in Wales. By the way, Labour runs the NHS in Wales; I wish I had responsibility for Wales, but I only have responsibility for England.
Victoria Atkins
It is going better than it is in Wales. Under the Labour-run NHS in Wales, a quarter of people are on a waiting list in that part of the NHS. The number of patients waiting two years is higher in Wales than it is in England. Patients are waiting on average six weeks longer in Labour-run Wales than in England. If that performance were replicated here in England, waiting lists could be as much as six million higher. The choice is clear: unfunded Labour failure or a clear plan for a more secure future with the Conservatives.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wes Streeting Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker.
Westminster is awash with rumours that the Prime Minister will call a July general election, presumably to avoid giving his Rwanda gimmick the time to fail. I have a very simple question for the Minister: will he repeat the pledge that the Prime Minister made last year and promise that NHS waiting lists will be lower at the time of the general election than when the Prime Minister came to office?
Andrew Stephenson
The Prime Minister has been very clear that getting waiting lists down is one of his top priorities, but he has also been clear that performance has been disappointing. One reason is that 1.4 million procedures have had to be rescheduled because of industrial action. I would gently ask the shadow Secretary of State whether he condemns those strikes.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Health Secretary has promised that the Government will provide an extra 2.5 million dental appointments this year, but the dentistry Minister, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), says the figure has
“a high likelihood of not being reliable”.
Which one of them is wrong?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have modelled down the ambitions, so the figure we initially provided was higher than 2.5 million appointments. That is because we are focused on delivering the dental recovery plan, rather than overpromising.
The hon. Gentleman finds it easy to call our children short and fat, but he shies away from welfare reform, calling it shameless and irresponsible. He says he is ready to stand up to middle-class lefties, but Labour has never put patients first by condemning the unions that strike. He makes glossy promises about reforming the NHS in England, yet Labour has failed completely—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently say that we need to get a lot of Back Benchers in, and I am sure both sides want to do that.
Wes Streeting
The last Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history, which is a record that the right hon. Lady’s Government cannot begin to touch.
Back to dentistry, the chief dental officer says the announcement is “nowhere near enough.” The British Dental Association says:
“This ‘Recovery Plan’ is not worthy of the title.”
It also says that the recovery plan will not stop the “exodus” of dentists and will not meet the Government’s targets. Who should the public trust, and why should they trust the Health Secretary to deliver when her own adviser, her own Minister and, crucially, dentists all say that she is brushing the truth under the carpet?
Victoria Atkins
Again, let us bring ourselves back up to date. I know the Labour party likes looking back to the last time it found favour with the British public, but Wales is the up-to-date record of today. Labour’s lamentable record of running the NHS in Wales speaks for itself. If the hon. Gentleman is so set on reform, why on earth is he not helping his Labour colleagues in Wales to do exactly as he is promising? It is because they are empty promises, and because the hon. Gentleman and, I am afraid, the Labour party will step back from reform rather than grappling with the issues, as we are doing with our recovery plan.
Finally, on the dental recovery plan, within a month of the new patient premium being switched on, hundreds of surgeries have opened to new patients, which means that patients in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere are getting the care they need.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
Wes Streeting ExcerptsTuesday 16th April 2024
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Until the early 2000s, every pub you walked into was filled with smoke. One in every four people in this country was a smoker. The last Labour Government banned smoking in public places, which had an enormous impact on the health of our nation. The following year, there were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks, according to the British Medical Journal. Since 2007, the number of people who smoke has been cut by almost a third. Our understanding of second-hand smoke grew, and there was a cultural change around where it was acceptable to smoke. Even at home, people went outside to smoke, instead of smoking in front of their children.
A study in Scotland found that whereas hospital admissions for children with asthma were increasing by 5% a year before the smoking ban, admissions were down by 18% in the three years following Labour’s legislation. In short, Labour helped to build a healthier society: smoking was down, the number of patients needing treatment was down, NHS beds were freed up and lives were saved. But there is more to do. During the 13 years when Labour was last in office, life expectancy was extended by three and a half years, but in the 14 years that the Conservatives have been in office, it has grown by just four months. For men, it is beginning to decline. We are falling into ill health earlier in life today than we were a decade ago, which is a shameful indication of our country’s decline.
What more motivation could this House need for once again taking seriously the health of our nation? Today, smoking remains a scourge on our society. Some 75,000 GP appointments every month are to deal with the impacts of smoking. The cost to our economy, after taxes, is £10 billion. Around 80,000 of our friends, neighbours and colleagues lose their lives to smoking every year. It is a lethal addiction, a scourge on society, an enormous burden on our NHS and a drag on our economy, and it is time to consign it to the dustbins of history. Let us act today so that the next generation of young people can live healthier, happier and longer lives than the generations before them.
Labour will give our wholehearted support to this Bill. In fact, we needed no persuasion. In an interview with The Times in January last year, I said that it was time for a New Zealand-style smoking ban. I argued that a progressive ban would have a transformational impact on the health of individuals, the health of the nation as a whole and the public finances.
After around two and a half years in this job, I am getting used to the Government nicking Labour’s policies. In the last year alone, the magpies opposite have swooped in on Labour’s NHS workforce plan, Labour’s plan to recruit dentists in the most under-served areas, Labour’s plan for a windfall tax on oil and gas giants, and Labour’s plan to abolish the non-dom tax status. Even so, I was shocked when I saw that the Conservative party—the party of Ken Clarke—is nicking the Labour party’s plan for a progressive ban on tobacco. Of all the policies that the Conservatives have adopted from the Labour party in the past few years, nothing shows our dominance in the battle of ideas more than this latest capitulation.
Where Labour leads, the Conservatives follow. Indeed, when I first floated this proposal, Conservative MPs called it “nanny state” and
“an attack on ordinary people and their culture”,
and I was accused of “health fascism”. What irony, when Conservative MPs are overseas today in Brussels, lining up with the European far right. Anyway, it is water off a duck’s back to me. I am delighted that just a few months later the Prime Minister announced this policy at the Conservative party conference, and that a Conservative Health Secretary has brought this progressive ban before Parliament today.
However, it seems that not every Conservative Member got the memo. It has been widely reported, and we have seen indications of it today, that there are still Members on the Conservative Benches—as many as 100, if we believe rebel Tory briefings to the media, although in our experience these Tory rebellions tend to evaporate when the moment comes—who resist the new interventionist consensus, who continue to fly the flag for small-state libertarianism, and who believe that the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister have surrendered to the lobbying of big health and those tyrants in Action on Smoking and Health, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, Alzheimer’s Research UK, Mind, Asthma and Lung UK, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association. Well, we happily align ourselves with big health in defence of the nation and we are only too happy to defend the Health Secretary against the siren voices of big tobacco that we see gathered around our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in the corner of the Chamber today.
Sir Jake Berry
On the issue of unity, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the comment made by his colleague the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that if we bring in a progressive ban on cigarettes, we should mirror it with a similar ban on vaping? If he becomes Health Secretary, will that become the policy that he will promote?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made the really good point—a point that needs to be well understood in the context of this debate—that vaping is undoubtedly, unquestionably a useful smoking cessation tool, but we should not send the message to the country that vaping is good for our health or that it is without harmful consequences. When it comes to banning things, it should be on the basis of evidence and there should not be a predisposition to ban. I have not yet seen evidence to persuade me that vaping is harmful enough to introduce a ban of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. I hope I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, when the general election eventually comes, the Labour party will not go around trying to ban things left, right and centre, but I certainly want to consign to the history books the 244,000 people on NHS waiting lists in his area as a direct result of the policies of the Government whom he supports and has served.
Wes Streeting
I will happily give way. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to take the opportunity to apologise to his constituents in Rossendale and Darwen for his abysmal record in government.
Sir Jake Berry
I will resist the hon. Gentleman’s offer. He has just said that vaping should only ever be used to help people to stop smoking cigarettes. If this Bill passes, it will be illegal for people who are now aged 15 ever to smoke cigarettes, so there will be no requirement in his world for them ever to vape. So I repeat the question, which he has refused to answer: will the Labour party bring forward—this is supported by his own party—a ban on vapes to mirror the tobacco ban? Yes or no?
Wes Streeting
The record will show that I answered the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I talked about banning things and taking away people’s choice, and there are plenty of things that we do on a daily basis that might be harmful to our health in some way. Indeed, participating in most physical contact sports carries a risk of injury, but we are not going to ban football, rugby or boxing. I refer him to my previous answer, which is that I have not seen evidence to persuade me to ban vaping in the way that this Government are proposing to phase out smoking. I have answered that question already and I answer it again now, but I am sure that it will not be lost on the people of Rossendale and Darwen that he did not take the opportunity to apologise to the 244,000 people in his area who are stuck on record long waiting lists.
Once again, the Prime Minister has shown that he is too weak to stand up to his party. The psychodrama in the Conservative party is being put before the interests of the country. In the press today, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) is the latest to let it be known that she will be opposing this Bill. Journalists were helpfully pointed towards comments about her belief in the limits of the state made during her last leadership campaign. I say “her last leadership campaign”, but I am sure that it will not be her last leadership campaign. Indeed, I do not think it has ever stopped. Anyway, that is what she said. In fact, she bemoaned Governments who try to “solve every problem”. Well, if she has a problem with Governments solving problems, she must be delighted with the record of this Government, who can barely solve any problems. They cannot even solve the chaos in their own party.
The Business Secretary is not the only one who is desperate to tell Conservative party members that they oppose this Bill. The former Prime Minister joins us today. The right hon. Member for South West Norfolk and recently declared candidate to be the next leader of the Conservative party, has said that the Bill is “profoundly unconservative”. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I find myself agreeing with the former Prime Minister. This is absolutely an un-Conservative Bill. It is a Labour Bill, and we are delighted to see the Government bring it forward. [Interruption.] Yes, even this stopped clock is right twice a day for the Trussites in the corner. The right hon. Lady is in fine company when it comes to former Prime Ministers. Boris Johnson has said that this proposal is
“absolutely nuts…It’s just mad”.
Well, now he knows how the rest of us felt when he was Prime Minister.
The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) could not be with us today because she is currently in Brussels surrounded by the police who are trying to shut down the event she is attending with some far right fanatics, with whom she has much in common. A source close to the right hon. and learned Lady has said that she is “not a fan” of the Bill. Well, now she knows how the rest of us feel about her, too.
Some dark horses have also spied an opportunity to play to the gallery. It seems that even my former bête noire, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), fancies his chances in the ongoing battle for the Conservative leadership, because he too has come out against this Bill. To be fair, he has a strong case for the leadership of the Conservative party. As Health Secretary, he had to face a workforce in constant dispute with him, which is good practice for dealing with the party, and he has to deal with a steady stream of toxic sewage in his current job, so who could be more experienced in coping with the travails of the modern Conservative party than the right hon. Gentleman?
I want to praise the one member of this Government who has consistently made the case for the Government’s Bill. No, of course I am not talking about the Prime Minister. Since his party conference speech in October he has shrunk away from the debate, once again too weak to stand up to his own party, and instead left it to others to make the case for him. To her credit, the Health Secretary has cast aside any leadership ambition she may have once held and come out in full-throated defence of Labour’s policy. So let me assure my comrade opposite that we will stand with her today in the voting Lobby, even as the forces of conservatism stand against her.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Going back to the subject of what we are trying to debate rather than playing a political game, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to pick up a sheet and throw some figures at me, because this is a serious question. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) asked a question about a consultation on vaping, those on the Opposition Front Bench shook their heads at the idea. Can I ask why? As a former smoker myself, I have moved to vaping in order to quit smoking, and I genuinely think that this issue needs to be considered. I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question: why does the Labour party think a consultation should not go ahead?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. It falls to me to defend the Government against their own Members, but to be fair to this Government, they have consulted on measures to clamp down on inappropriate vaping. They have consulted, and we have been urging them to go faster in cracking down on the sale of vapes to under-age people in this country—a generation of young people who have become addicted to nicotine. I will talk about that further on in my speech.
The Government have consulted and the Bill will go through the legislative process. We will no doubt have a rigorous debate today and in the Bill Committee. It will then report to this House and then go to the House of Lords, where it will be continue to be scrutinised, and it is unacceptable that there are still people who would tie the Health Secretary’s hands behind her back and slow her down when urgent action is needed to clamp down on the people who are selling nicotine to children. Those people are addicting children to nicotine. I do not understand why on earth the Trussites in the corner are trying to tie the hands of their own Health Secretary when she is trying to do the right thing by young people.
Sara Britcliffe
The hon. Member is putting me on the wrong side of this argument as a former smoker, so I would appreciate it if he had a little bit more respect. What I am trying to ask is this: why does he not agree that people who are using vaping as a substitute for smoking should be consulted on what they believe should happen through this Bill?
Wes Streeting
I do not know whether there is a problem with the speaker system in here, because this is the second time I have had an intervention after answering the question. I have already said that the Government have consulted on measures to clamp down, and I am absolutely not against the Government talking to people who, like the hon. Lady, have used vaping as a smoking cessation tool. In fact, I fully support the point she is making, which is that vaping can be a really effective tool to help smokers to quit smoking. I am in favour of that; that is good for health. If the Government want to talk to and engage with people who vape as part of the passage of this Bill, that is absolutely fine. What I am not in favour of is tying the Secretary of State’s hands when she wants to do more, and more quickly, to prevent children becoming addicted to nicotine.
Victoria Atkins
Just to be clear, we will consult on this. It is a simple question that requires a simple answer: will Labour consult further?
Wes Streeting
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are now in this parallel universe where the Secretary of State is asking me, the shadow Secretary of State, whether I am going to consult on her Bill. Now, I am willing to help her out, but if she wants me to sit on that side of the Chamber and run the Department of Health and Social Care, I am ready and willing, but we need a general election to do that. I do not understand—this is just extraordinary. I feel like I am living in a parallel universe this afternoon. It was bad enough when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, walked in with her book and her fan club, and now we have the absurd spectacle of the Secretary of State asking me whether I will run the consultation on her Bill. This is extraordinary. I will allow her to correct the record and save her blushes.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman is not listening. He has been asked repeatedly whether he supports the concept of a consultation on vaping in order to ensure that these regulations are drawn up properly. He is not listening. He refuses to answer the question. We on this side of the House are clear: we want to get this right and we will consult. I am simply asking whether he will answer the questions that he has been asked.
Wes Streeting
Honestly, Mr Deputy Speaker, you just can’t help some people. I am trying to help the Secretary of State out and defend her against her own side, and now, to curry favour with them, she has turned on me. Now I know what it is like being in the Conservative party. This is like a 1922 committee meeting—absolutely absurd.
For the final time, let me just explain the situation we find ourselves in today. The Secretary of State is currently in government. This is her Bill. She is taking it through Parliament. She is perfectly able to run a consultation. I will support her in running a consultation, if that is the support she needs. [Interruption.] I am so pleased. If only I had known it was that easy. If all she needed was a bit of moral support from me to run the consultation, then you go, comrade—don’t you worry; I have got your back, and it is absolutely fine.
I am trying to be helpful to the Secretary of State this afternoon, but I just have to say to her that I am not sure that the best way to persuade her colleagues was to invoke the great cigar chomper, Winston Churchill. Some have estimated that Churchill went through 160,000 cigars in his time. Indeed, on one occasion, at a lunch with the then King of Saudi Arabia, Churchill was told that no smoking or drinking would be permitted in the royal presence. He responded:
“If it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol, I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and, if need be, during all meals and in the intervals between them.”
I appreciate the Health Secretary’s efforts, but I fear that Lord Soames was probably on to something when he said that his grandfather certainly would not have approved of this Bill.
Just before any Conservative Members decide to wage yet another culture war and accuse me of talking down one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, I would just add to the historical record that it was thanks to the Labour party that it was Winston Churchill, not Lord Halifax, who became the leader of our country at a crucial time, and thank goodness that he did. Nevertheless, I do commend the Secretary of State on a good effort—she was close, but no cigar. Anyway, let us go back to the economic arguments of the Bill.
Vicky Ford
I want to go back to the point about consultation. I think that the hon. Gentleman has agreed that, for people who smoke cigarettes, moving on to vapes can be helpful. What he may not know is that people who have moved on to those vapes tell us that, if they are unflavoured and just taste of nicotine, they taste revolting. That is why many vapes are flavoured. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) may be so concerned about making sure that people’s views are listened to before flavours are removed from the market.
It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman did not get that point, because he was refusing to believe that any such consultation was important. Therefore, out of respect to the people who use these products to stop smoking, can he confirm again that if he is in government at the time, soon after this Bill is passed, he will consult people and listen to their views before banning the products they use?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I think she makes a perfectly sensible point, actually, and I am perfectly open to lobbying from Conservative Members on how a Labour Government will behave after the general election—she seems to think it is a foregone conclusion, but I certainly do not; we will be working hard for every vote. I can reassure her that our concern has been about children becoming addicted to nicotine. In relation to adult use of vapes as a tool for stopping smoking, I think she makes an absolutely reasonable point about flavourless vaping, and of course she is right that we need to ensure that we get the regulation right on that so that we do not unwittingly deter people from stopping smoking. However, as I will come on to talk about when I come to the vaping section of the Bill, there is no excuse whatsoever for the kinds of flavourings and marketing of vapes that we have seen, which I believe have been deliberately and wilfully designed to addict young people to what is, let us not forget, a harmful substance. I make that very clear.
Anyway, back to the Bill—someone has to defend it, and I get the sense that there are not going to be too many on the Government side, so I will have a go at doing what the Prime Minister is too weak to do and take on the arguments of his own party. They say that the progressive ban on smoking is unconservative. Let me tell them what is unconservative: the heaviest tax burden in 70 years, and it will get heavier if we do not act to prevent ill health.
If we continue down the road that the Conservatives have put us on, with more and more people suffering, falling sick and falling out of the workforce, we will not just be letting those people down; we will all be paying a heavy price for it too. The costs of sickness and disability benefits are due to rise on the Government’s watch, from £65 billion this year to over £90 billion by the end of the next Parliament.
The budget for the NHS is £165 billion this year, and the health service is not coping with existing demands. If society continues to get less healthy, those demands will only rise. If the health service and our welfare service are to be made sustainable for the future, then we must act to prevent ill health in the first place. What better way to do that than by wiping out the leading cause of cancer? It is not just our public finances that are held back by ill health; so too is our economy.
Alexander Stafford
I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument to its logical conclusion. He talks about substances that are bad—addictive and harmful to people’s health—and have a huge impact on the NHS through those costs, but there are so many more things that are in fact worse for health. Sugar and salt are highly addictive. Does this mean that Labour’s plan is to ban foods with high levels of salt or sugar? Logically, that is the next step, and therefore, if we need to protect the NHS and cut costs, we should be banning anything that is slightly bad for us, rather than actually taking a better enjoyment of life and saying, “A little bit of what you fancy every now and again is okay, and good for your mental health.”
Wes Streeting
I think that is extraordinary. I do not think that smoking is slightly harmful; I think it is the single biggest cause of cancer, and I think that the costs to people’s health, to our national health service and to our economy are enormous. This sort of argument—that if we ban smoking for young people, we have to ban everything else—is absurd. I think that the Secretary of State just pointed out the absurdity of it when she pointed to a whole range of harmful things in our country that are already banned.
Let me put the question back to the libertarian wing in the corner of the Chamber. Will the new modern Conservative party not ban anything? Will we have a libertarian dystopia in which people are free to do whatever they want in the name of liberty? [Interruption.] I am just trying to help the Secretary of State by taking on the libertarians in the corner. I would be very sad if she wants me to give in to them but, with 187,000 people on the waiting list in the local area of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), I think we should do something about it.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I proudly call myself a libertarian, because I believe in the fundamental value of freedom of decision making. On what we should and should not ban, I would argue there is a very substantial difference between banning class A and class B drugs, which do immense harm in all our communities, and banning tobacco. We already struggle to stop the former, so why on earth would we try to create and police a huge black market in the latter?
Wes Streeting
I admire the right hon. Gentleman for sticking to his convictions as a libertarian in making that case, even though I strongly disagree with him, but how far does his commitment to libertarianism go? He is defending the right of our country’s children to become addicted to nicotine for the rest of their life, which is an extraordinary argument. There are 356,000 people in his local area on NHS waiting lists. Does he want a future where that gets worse and the disease burden and cost pressures rise? When he was in government, the low-tax Conservatives crashed our economy and sent people’s mortgages through the roof, and rents, bills and the tax burden rose. That is their record. I wish he would do more to stand up for his low-tax convictions than his libertarian desire that children growing up in our country today should become addicted to nicotine. I have to respectfully disagree with him.
Compared with three years ago, half a million more people are out of work due to long-term sickness. People’s careers are being ruined by illnesses that prevent them from contributing to Britain’s economic success. We cannot build a healthy economy without a healthy society. Not only is there a moral argument for backing this progressive ban, based on the countless lives ruined by smoking and our shared determination to make sure that children growing up in Britain today will not die as a result of smoking, but there is an economic argument, too.
It is certainly true that vaping is less harmful than smoking and is a useful smoking cessation tool, but vapes are harmful products none the less. In the past few years, entirely on the Conservatives’ watch, a new generation of children have become hooked on nicotine. An estimated quarter of a million children vape today, and there is no doubt that this is the result of vaping companies’ decision to target children. On any high street in the country today, people can buy brightly coloured vapes and e-liquids with names such as “Vimto Breeze” and “Mango Ice”. They are designed, packaged, marketed and deliberately sold to children. The effect of this new nicotine addiction on our country’s young people should trouble us all.
Ms Lyn Brown
A couple of years back, Newham did a survey and discovered that 4% of year 6 children—that is 10 and 11-year-olds—had already vaped. I met Community Links in Canning Town in January, and it has been working on projects to tackle misinformation. Its students explained to me that they and their friends have been encouraged to believe that vaping is somehow safe and will not cause them the same problems with nicotine. Surely we can all agree that the voices of young people need to be heard and that they need to be encouraged and assisted to tackle the misinformation about vaping that is clearly out there.
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and I am very familiar with Community Links, which does brilliant work. We should take the voices of children and young people seriously—the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) made that point earlier.
Teachers monitor school toilets where children congregate to vape. Kids are making up excuses to leave their classroom in order to satisfy their nicotine cravings, and children in primary school, aged 9 or younger, have ended up in hospital because of the impact of vaping. Paediatric chest physicians report that children are being put in intensive care units for conditions such as lung bleeding, lung collapse and lungs filling up with fat. One girl who started vaping at school told the BBC that she has
“no control over it…I start to get shaky and it’s almost all I can think of.”
The question that must be asked of Conservative Members should not be whether they will take action today, but what has taken them so long. In 2021, Labour supported an amendment to the Health and Care Act 2022 to ban the branding and marketing of vapes to appeal to children—Conservative MPs voted it down. In 2023, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) led a debate on an Opposition day motion on the same proposed ban—once again, Conservative MPs failed to support it. Thanks to their delay in acting against this, and thanks to their awful, shocking complacency, thousands more children have taken up vaping and become addicted to nicotine. Can the Health Secretary tell the House whether the Government’s delay in acting against youth vaping had anything to do with the £350,000 donation her party received from the boss of a major vaping company that sells vapes with flavours such as “Blue Razz Lemonade” and “Strawberry Mousse”?
We are an ageing society facing rising chronic disease. We are approaching these challenges with an NHS already in the worst crisis in its history, with the longest waiting lists and lowest patient satisfaction on record, 121,000 staff vacancies across the health service and 14,000 fewer hospital beds than in 2010. If we do not act today to ease the pressures coming down the track, they threaten to overwhelm and even bankrupt the health service.
Prevention is better than cure. This progressive ban must be the beginning of a decade in which we shift the focus of healthcare in this country from sickness to prevention, which is mission critical to making sure the NHS can be there for us in the next 75 years, just as it has been there for us in the past 75 years.
If the Government are serious about taking on this challenge, Labour has many more plans that they can adopt before they finally call the general election. They could adopt our children’s health plan to give every child a healthy start to life. They could ban junk food ads aimed at kids so that children are not targeted by unhealthy food. They could tackle the mental health crisis facing young people, with support in every school, hubs in every community, and 8,500 more mental health professionals to cut the disgracefully long waiting times for treatment.
They could treat the 152,000 children who have been on NHS waiting lists for more than 18 weeks, ending long waits for children for good. We will do it by providing 2 million more operations, and by providing evening and weekend appointments to beat the Tory backlog. We will have supervised toothbrushing in schools to tackle the moral emergency of children needing to have their rotting teeth pulled out, which is the No. 1 reason why children aged six to 10 end up in hospital. We will have breakfast clubs in every primary school so that kids start the day with hungry minds, not hungry bellies. We will digitise the red book, making sure that all kids are up to date on their checks and vaccines. And we will once again put an end to measles in this country, after it has been allowed to return on the Government’s watch.
We want the next generation to be chasing their dreams, not a dentist appointment. They should aspire to reach their potential, not to reach a doctor. Labour’s plan is to make sure that today’s children are part of the healthiest generation that has ever lived, and this ban is just the start.
The Prime Minister may be too weak to whip his MPs to vote for this important Bill, but Labour will put country first and party second. We will resist the temptation to play games on votes. Instead, we will go through the Lobby to make sure this legislation is passed so that today’s young people are even less likely to smoke than they are to vote Conservative.
I commend this Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Elizabeth Truss
I will not give way to the hon. Lady—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I will not give way. I will give exactly as much opportunity as the Opposition gave me to talk about my private Member’s Bill, which I shall come on to later.
The problem is that the instinct of this establishment, which is reflected in cross-party consensus in the Chamber, is to believe that it—that the Government—is better at making decisions for people than people themselves. I absolutely agree that that is true for the under-18s. It is very important that we protect people while they are growing up until they have decision-making capability. However, I think the whole idea that we can protect adults from themselves is hugely problematic and effectively infantilises people. That is what has been going on. We are seeing, not just on tobacco but on sugar, alcohol and meat, a group of people who want to push an agenda which is about limiting personal freedom. I think that that is fundamentally wrong.
I go out canvassing a lot in my Norfolk constituency. People raise all kinds of issues with me on the doorstep. They are concerned about immigration. They are concerned about the cost of energy. They are concerned about the rise of China. They want to support Ukraine. Not a single voter has ever said to me, “My big concern is adults smoking.” This proposal has not come from people—our constituents—talking to us. It has come from a group of people who, by and large, work in a professional capacity pushing these policies. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, this proposal was sitting on her desk, so it is not new. I am pleased to say that she put it in the bin, but unfortunately since then it seems to have been pulled out of the bin and resuscitated. My real fear is that this is not the final stage that the health police want to push.
Elizabeth Truss
They are the health police, and people are concerned about this. They want to be able to make their own decisions about what they eat, what they drink and how they enjoy themselves. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I suggest that he starts listening to the public.
What I also find extraordinary is the fact that almost four weeks ago I put a private Member’s Bill to Parliament to ban under-18s from being able to access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in the private sector and on the national health service. Children have been taking those drugs, and that has had life-changing effects on them. They have prevented them from having their own children, created problems with their physique and their bodies, and damaged their health.
Not only did the Labour party not support my private Member’s Bill but its Members talked and filibustered—they talked about ferrets—so much that I was not even able to speak. These are the same people who are saying that in future we should ban cigarettes for 30-year-olds, yet they will not vote to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for the under-18s. Thank goodness that Hilary Cass has come forward with her report. I welcome the support of the Health and Social Care Secretary for that report, but that is what we should be legislating on. We should be legislating on implementing the recommendations in the Hilary Cass report to prevent real danger to our children, rather than a virtue-signalling piece of legislation about protecting adults from themselves in future.
I am afraid that too many Members of Parliament have gone along with this orthodoxy. I am not surprised that that is the case for Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, who generally do not support freedom. They believe that the Government know best—the state knows best—and we understand that. I am disappointed, however, that a Conservative Government has introduced the Bill. The only other country in the world where such a Bill was brought forward was New Zealand, under a very left-wing Prime Minister. That Bill has now been reversed under the new conservative Government in New Zealand. I have a message for my colleagues on this side of the House. If people want to vote for finger-wagging, nannying control freaks, there are plenty of them to choose from in the Opposition, and that is the way they will vote. If people want to have control over their lives, if they want to have freedom, that is why they vote Conservative. We have to stand by our principles and ideals even if—
Elizabeth Truss
No, I am not giving way to the party that filibustered on my Bill and stopped us taking action to protect children. That was a disgrace.
Elizabeth Truss
I certainly do not support the liberalisation of those drugs. We know that people who become addicted to heroin and cocaine are a huge danger to other people and to their families; it destroys society. That is not the level of danger that tobacco poses, so those are very different scenarios.
I will come to my conclusion, because I know that a lot of people want to speak in the debate. What I ask is that Members do not just follow the instructions of the health lobby. We have heard about what the chief medical officer says. I know from being a Government Minister that there are often schemes pushed by officials and civil servants because, fundamentally, there is a belief that government knows best. I want Members of Parliament to think not just about what happens if we ban smoking for people who are over the age of 18, but about the implications for shopkeepers who have to identify whether people are the right age. Will it mean that people have to carry ID into shops with them into their 40s? What are the practical implications? It is a very dangerous precedent to start saying that some adults can have the freedom to smoke and some cannot. That is a fundamental problem. It is fundamentally unconservative, it is unliberal and I will not be supporting the Bill.
Wes Streeting
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Members of this House to attack individual officers, such as the chief medical officer, or the civil service more generally, when they cannot answer back? Ultimately, advisers advise and Ministers decide. If people do not like Government policy or its consequences, they should take responsibility as Ministers and not attack officials who cannot answer back.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will allow that to rest on the record.
Cass Review
Wes Streeting Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and, even more importantly, Dr Hilary Cass and her team for the thoughtful and thorough way in which they have undertaken their work. Dr Cass has navigated the complexities and sensitivities of the subject with academic rigour, providing an evidence-led framework for children to receive the best possible healthcare. I also pay tribute to journalists such as Hannah Barnes and the whistleblowers who together helped to shine a light on what was going on at the Tavistock clinic.
At the heart of the complexity around this issue are two things that are true simultaneously. There are trans adults in this country who have followed a medical pathway and who say that, for all the pain and difficulty that involved, it was not just life-affirming; it was lifesaving. There are also people in this country who followed a medical pathway but who say it was a disaster that ruined their lives irreversibly, and they ask how anyone could have let that happen. For the sake of all those children, young people and now adults—but particularly those being referred into gender identity services today—we have a duty to get this right.
What has emerged in the Cass review is a scandal. It is a scandal that children and young people are waiting far too long—often years—for care while their wellbeing deteriorates and their childhood slips away. It is scandalous that medical interventions have been made on the basis of shaky evidence. It is scandalous that, despite all that, some NHS providers refused to co-operate with Dr Cass’s review. Perhaps the worst scandal of all is that the toxicity of this discussion means that people have felt silenced, and it required investigative journalism to prompt the review to take place. This particularly vulnerable group of children and young people are at the wrong end of all the statistics for mental ill health, suicide and self-harm. There is no doubt that they have been very badly let down, so we owe it to them to approach this discussion with the same care and sensitivity with which Dr Cass undertook her review.
Parts of the report will sound familiar to anyone acquainted with the NHS today. Children and young people face unacceptably long waiting lists and are unable to get the mental health support and assessments they require, and services face significant staff shortages, with a lack of workforce planning driving all of that. As with so many parts of the NHS today, the report paints a picture of a service unable to cope with demand. Dr Cass is clear that care must be personal and holistic. Will the Secretary of State set out how she plans to cut waiting times for assessments for mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions?
Waiting lists are so bad in some cases that children are passing into adulthood before they have had their first appointment with gender identity services, leaving them facing a cliff edge. Cass recommends follow-through services up to the age of 25 to ensure continuity of care. Will the Secretary of State indicate how long she thinks it will take to establish those services?
Labour welcomed the decision by NHS England last month to stop the routine prescription of puberty blockers to under-18s. The loophole that exists for private providers risks sparking a black market. The Secretary of State has said that she expects private clinics to follow the report’s recommendations to follow the evidence. I underline our support for her expectations on compliance. Can she give an indication of whether she thinks that further regulation may be needed to ensure adequate enforcement of the recommendations?
The refusal of adult gender services to share data on the long-term experience of patients is inexcusable—as the Secretary of State said, it is deplorable. The data does not belong to them; it belongs to the NHS and, crucially, to patients. I welcome their coming forward now, but how was this allowed to happen, and what accountability does she think would be appropriate?
This report must provide a watershed moment for the NHS’s gender identity services. Children’s healthcare should always be led by evidence and be in the best interests of children’s welfare. Dr Cass’s report has provided the basis on which to go forward. The report must also provide a watershed moment for the way in which our society and our politics discuss this issue. There are children, young people and adults—including trans children, young people and adults—in this country who are desperately worried and frightened by the toxicity of this debate. There are healthcare professionals who are scared to do their job and make their views known. Dr Cass said that
“toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder”
and it will hamper the research that is essential to finding a way forward.
Even in a general election year, there is surely one issue on which we can down tools and work together: the pursuit of the healthcare of vulnerable people. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid). We had many scraps across the Dispatch Box, but for his role in commissioning this review he deserves our thanks and respect. I hope to work constructively with the Health Secretary to put children’s health and wellbeing above the political fray.
Victoria Atkins
I welcome all those who have changed their minds about this critical issue. In order to move forward and get on with the vital work that Dr Cass recommends, we need more people to face up to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them feel. I hope the hon. Gentleman has the humility to understand that the ideology that he and his colleagues espoused was part of the problem. He talked about the culture and the toxicity of the debate. Does he understand the hurt that he caused to people when he told them to “just get over it”? Does he know that when he and his friends on the left spent the last decade crying, “Culture wars,” when legitimate concerns were raised created an atmosphere of intimidation, with the impact on the workforce that he rightly described? People were scared or worried to go into it.
Does the hon. Gentleman now have the good grace to apologise to those who have been maligned in public life—including his own female colleagues—and for the chilling effect that this has had on clinicians, journalists and campaigners who were trying to raise the alarm? I say that because I want to believe the hon. Gentleman when he says that he has turned a corner on this issue. We have to start with a new page, for the sake not just of the children and young people we are looking after but of their families, many of whom will be watching this, living with the consequences of the ideology and secrecy, wondering how on earth the hon. Gentleman talks about general elections when, every single minute and day, their children have to live with treatment that can never be reversed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wes Streeting Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The simple fact is that the Conservatives have been in power for 14 years, and general practice has never been in a worse state. Despite slogging their guts out, GPs are struggling because this Government have cut 2,000 GPs since 2015, making it even harder for patients to get an appointment. Given that, why has the Government decided that the NHS needs what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as the biggest funding cut since the 1970s?
Victoria Atkins
It has been a very long time since Labour were in government, but even the hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers will never comment on fiscal events the day before they occur. Let me introduce some facts into his analysis. We have now delivered on our manifesto commitment for 50 million more general practice appointments per year, with 363.8 million booked in the last 12 months. That compares with 312 million deliveredin the 12 months to December 2019. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stopped shouting, perhaps he would be able to hear me. About 62,000 more appointments were delivered per working day last December, excluding covid vaccinations. We have our primary care recovery plan, and it is working. Of course there is more to do, but even the hon. Gentleman would not be so churlish as to deny those extra 50 million appointments.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
With a general election in the air, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about baby loss certificates and Martha’s rule—there is genuine cross-party agreement on this. I also thank her for advance notice of today’s important written ministerial statement.
However, with a general election in the air and given the Secretary of State’s principled, vocal and consistent opposition to funding the NHS by abolishing the non-dom tax status, on a scale of one to 10—one being utterly shameless and 10 being highly embarrassed—how red-faced will she be when the Chancellor adopts Labour’s policy tomorrow?
Victoria Atkins
One of the joys of being at the Government Dispatch Box is that not only do we have to deal with very serious matters, such as I have just set out, but we get to have a knockabout on the Labour party’s electioneering. The hon. Gentleman will know the Conservatives’ proud record on funding our NHS since 2010. I invite him to wait for tomorrow’s Budget to see what more this Conservative Government are doing to support our constituents, and to help our economy grow for a bright future.
Wes Streeting
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), has said that the policy will be
“as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 710.]
As she speeds down the A23 back to Lewes, to defend her constituency against the Liberal Democrats, how on earth will she feel with all those embers of the Conservatives’ 14-year record blowing in her face?
Is it not now clear that, with the Government having adopted Labour’s workforce plan, Labour’s dentistry recruitment plan and now Labour’s NHS funding plan, when it comes to a record to be proud of, and when it comes to finding the answers, only Labour can deliver an NHS that is fit for the future?
Victoria Atkins
The Leader of the Opposition is a former barrister, and barristers like to rely on evidence, so let me give some evidence on what the Labour-run NHS in Wales looks like. People are almost twice as likely to be waiting for treatment under the Labour-run Welsh NHS—21.3% of people in Wales are waiting for hospital treatment after a consultant referral, compared with 12.8% in England. Patients in Labour-run Wales are, on average, waiting five weeks longer for NHS treatment than patients in England, and the number of patients in Wales who are escaping to seek treatment in England has increased by 40% in two years. But don’t worry, folks, according to the Leader of the Opposition this is the blueprint—
NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform
Wes Streeting Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly associate myself and my party with the Secretary of State’s remarks on sending our best wishes to His Majesty the King. Having gone through a cancer diagnosis myself, I particularly send best wishes to his family, for whom a diagnosis is often more difficult than for the person receiving it.
Also in the generous spirit in which we have begun, may I thank the Health and Social Care Secretary for accidentally e-mailing me her entire plan yesterday? That goes above and beyond the courtesy that we normally expect. I look forward to receiving her party’s election manifesto any day now—but of course we will have to write ours first to give her party some inspiration.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, NHS dentistry is in decay. Eight in 10 dentists are not taking on new patients, and in the south-west of England the figure is 99%. One in 10 people has been forced to attempt DIY dentistry—Dickensian conditions!—because they cannot see an NHS dentist, and they cannot afford to go private. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Baker, I am sorry, but I don’t want any more heckling from you; you did a little bit earlier. I wanted everybody to listen to the Secretary of State, and I expect them to do the same for the shadow Secretary of State.
Wes Streeting
Don’t worry, Mr Speaker: I will come back to the Parliamentary Private Secretary shortly. Tooth decay is the No.1 reason for children aged six to 10 being admitted to hospital. Unbelievably, there have been reports of Ukrainian refugees booking dentist appointments back home and returning for treatment, because it is easier to fly to a war-torn country than it is to see an NHS dentist in England. Well, at least one Government policy is getting flights off the ground—and it is certainly not the Government’s Rwanda scheme failure.
Let us look at the human consequences of this Conservative tragedy. Labour’s candidate in Great Yarmouth, Keir Cozens, told me about Jeanette, a young woman in her 30s who has struggled with gum and mouth problems all her life. She used to be able to get treatment; now she cannot find an NHS dentist in all of Norfolk to take her. She cannot afford to go private. It hurts to smile, it hurts to laugh, and the pain is so great that Jeanette does not go out anymore. Just this week, she resorted to trying to remove her tooth herself. That is not right for anyone of any age, but Jeanette should be in the prime of her life. Will the Secretary of State apologise to Jeanette and the millions like her for what the Conservatives have done to NHS dentistry?
After 14 years of neglect, cuts and incompetence, the Government have today announced a policy of more appointments, recruiting dentists to the areas most in need and toothbrushing for children. It sounds awfully familiar. They are adopting much of Labour’s rescue plan for dentistry. Does that not show that the Conservatives are out of ideas of their own, and are looking to Labour to fix the mess they have made? I say: next time Conservative Ministers say that Labour does not have a plan, or that Labour’s plan is not credible, don’t believe a word of it.
There are some differences between our two parties’ approaches. Labour is pledging an extra 700,000 urgent and emergency appointments, which are additional to the appointments announced today. Can the Health Secretary confirm that the Government’s plan does not provide any additional emergency support? Labour proposed supervised early-years toothbrushing, and Conservative MPs accused it of being “nanny state”. Does the Health Secretary stand by that label, or does she now support children under five being supported in brushing their teeth?
The key difference is that we recognise that our plan is a rescue plan, and that to put NHS dentistry back on its feet, immediate reform of the dental contract is needed. Without that, the Government’s plan is doomed to fail. Do not just take my word for it; the British Dental Association has said that the plan will not stop the exodus of dentists from the NHS, will not provide a dentist for every patient who needs one, and will not put an end to this crisis.
I come to the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and the miserable script that the Whips are spreading out on the Table. If Labour’s contract is to blame, why have the Government not reformed it in 14 years, and why are they not reforming it now? In 2010, the Conservatives promised in their election manifesto to reform the dental contract. They are bringing back not just Lord Cameron, but his broken promises. People have been desperately trying to get dental care for years, but there was nothing from the Conservative party. Now that we are in an election year, the Conservatives are trying to kick the can down the road, and are scrambling for a plan. They only discover their heart when they fear in their heart for their political futures, and the consequences have been seen: queues around the block in Bristol.
Finally, the Secretary of State is promising reform after 2025 and after the next general election. Who is she trying to kid? After 2025, the Conservatives will be gone, and if they are not, NHS dentistry will be. How many more chances do they expect? How many more broken promises will there be? We had 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. Their time is up, and it is time for Labour to deliver the change that this country needs.
Victoria Atkins
I tried to help the hon. Gentleman by giving him an advance copy of my speech yesterday, yet that was his speech. This Government are focused on delivering for patients. Perhaps I can help him understand the difference between the Opposition’s proposals and the Government’s fully funded dental recovery plan. The Opposition’s ambitions reach only as far as 700,000 more appointments. Our plan will provide more than three times that number of appointments across the country—that is 2.5 million, to help him with his maths. We are offering golden hellos to 240 dentists who will work in hard-to-reach and under-served areas; their proposals cover only 200. They have no plan for training more dentists; we set out in the long-term workforce plan last year, and again in the dental recovery plan, that we will increase training places for dentists by 40% by 2031.
Then we have the centrepiece of the Opposition’s proposals: making teachers swap their textbooks for toothbrushes—an idea that is hated by teachers and that patronises parents. We believe that most parents do a great job of looking after their children. I know that the Labour party does not agree with that; the hon. Gentleman called our children short and fat on a media round. We believe that most parents do a great job, and that is why we support pregnant mums-to-be, and support parents in family hubs and nurseries. We will not wait until reception class, by which time children have already got their teeth.
I want to dwell on the experience of anybody living under Labour in Labour-run Wales. Health services in Wales are devolved, and the Leader of the Opposition has called Wales “the blueprint” for how the Opposition will run our health system. Welsh Labour has the highest proportion of NHS dental practices not accepting new adult patients, and the joint highest proportion of those not accepting new child patients. In Wales, 93% of NHS dental practices are not accepting new adult patients. That is a higher figure than for any other nation in the UK. Some 86% of practices there are not accepting new child patients, which is the joint highest figure with Northern Ireland. Our plan is fully funded, but how will Labour pay for its plan? By using the magical money tree. The list of policies funded by the non-dom policy is as long as my arm. In 2022, it promised to fund a workforce plan. Last September, it became breakfast club meals. By October, it morphed into 2 million appointments and scanning equipment. By Christmas, it was funding a dentistry plan. It is the same old Labour: it has no plan.