Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between William Cash and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with most of what the hon. Member said and the starting point in particular—that the gaps in healthy life expectancy are far too big. She will have heard me articulate from this Dispatch Box how important it is that we close those gaps. The news out this week of lower mortality in 2019 was good news that she ought to welcome, but it certainly does not mean that the campaign to close the gap in healthy life expectancy is over. There is far more to come.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Coronavirus has a bearing on life expectancy and I have a particular concern in relation to GPs in surgeries in my constituency. A world-leader on the transmission of infections raised with me a vital question, which is the provision of protective suits and training. At the moment, I am told that they are not being given to GPs, but exclusively to hospital staff. Will the Secretary of State please look into that and do something about it?

[Matt Hancock]

I am right across this issue. My hon. Friend is right to raise it, but I can reassure him fully that we have now rolled out personal protective equipment to two-thirds of primary care and the rest of it is in progress. We will absolutely address this issue. It is quite right that we did. We wanted to get the timing of the roll-out right so that the equipment is there should the epidemic hit in a very large way. We have to make sure we protect our health staff.

Listeria: Contaminated Sandwiches

Debate between William Cash and Matt Hancock

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The shadow Secretary of State raises important questions, and I will try to address them all. Ultimately, I strongly agree with him that this is about standards of care. People deserve to be able to trust that the food they eat and are given in hospital is safe and, indeed, nutritious and good for their health—that is an important part of this too. Clearly, the most acute aspect of what we are discussing is safety and the lack of listeria in food, but it is part of a much bigger picture, which is why we are having a root-and-branch review.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the hospital food plan, which NHS Improvement has been leading. The review will be wider than, but will encompass, some of the existing work that is ongoing. It is about not only how food is procured by hospitals, but the quality of food. Work on the national standards in hospital food is important. It has been ongoing for several years and will come to fruition very soon. More broadly, dozens of hospital trusts have brought their catering in-house and found that they get better quality food that is more likely to be locally produced and is better value for money. We will be examining that model closely, because I am very attracted to it, and it has the potential to reduce the risk of safety concerns such as this.

The hon. Gentleman asked about timings. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), was made aware of this outbreak on 4 June. I was informed on 6 June, and we published the details of the outbreak on 7 June.

Before that, Public Health England very swiftly identified that there was a link between these particular listeria outbreaks. It is only because of recent advances in genomic medicine and testing that we could work out—that Public Health England could work out—that the outbreak in Liverpool and the outbreak in Manchester were connected, and therefore identify that the source was outside those hospitals, rather than inside the hospitals, and that is what then identified that this was from the food source. The truth is that there are just over 150 listeria cases a year. It is a notifiable disease, so we are confident that we are properly notified of the various cases. Frankly, it was cutting-edge work by Public Health England that allowed us to connect these different cases and work out that a single source was causing these deaths.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 43 trusts that we know bought from the Good Food Chain. We have of course been in contact with all hospital trusts, whether or not they bought from this individual company, to try to make sure that we have confidence in their supplies. The Good Food Chain has confirmed that it has followed advice and has disposed of all products. That is what the Good Food Chain company has said to us, but we are of course reconfirming that with the trusts because we want to get this right.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about investment in food and catering facilities. The truth is that it is important to have the best-quality food in hospitals. I am completely open to upgrading hospital equipment if that is what is necessary, and if it provides value for money. I have been struck by the number of hospital chief executives who have said that from the point of view of patient satisfaction, staff morale, and nutrition and the quality of food, bringing such food supplies in-house is the best thing they have done.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that in my constituency of Stone, where the Good Food Chain is situated, there is obviously very deep concern, not least because we had the horrendous Mid Staffs hospital crisis. I had to campaign on that against the Labour Government’s refusal to give a full public inquiry, which our Government did give.

Having said that, is it not the case that the Good Food Chain is only responsible for the products that the patients consumed, and that the bacteria came from another company, which I am given to understand is called North Country Cooked Meats in Salford? I do commend Public Health England and the Secretary of State for the rapid way in which they identified the connections between these different places. Whereas it is absolutely essential that we have the root and branch review the Secretary of State has provided, is it not also the case that while the companies concerned will have to accept responsibility as far as it falls on them, at the same time there are really important reasons to identify exactly what did happen—where the food was contaminated, how it was contaminated—and then to exonerate the Good Food Chain, if in fact that is the case, because it is very unfair for companies to be caught up in something when it was not entirely their fault?

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Not yet. My hon. Friend rightly raises the question of the supply chain, and it is true that the food in question came from North Country Cooked Meats. In turn, we are trying to identify the suppliers to North Country Cooked Meats to get to the real root of this outbreak. He is quite right to identify that this is a supply chain issue, and that there is a complex supply chain in operation.

I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Public Health England. Within days, it spotted the links between individual cases and, from a local incident, made this into a national incident. At the appropriate moment, it raised the issue with the chief medical officer and with Ministers in the Department, and we could then explain the problem to the public. Its work has identified the problem, and undoubtedly it has potentially saved lives.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between William Cash and Matt Hancock

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister calls on the law. The question of voter trust in this referendum, as I said to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 3 and 25 February, is paramount. For the voters who will decide this question, knowledge is, as we know, power. Does the Minister deny that under sections 6 and 7 of the later and express provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, a legal duty is imposed on the Government to provide referendum information and the voter is entitled to accurate and impartial information, as the Minister for Europe agreed in reply to me when the House debated that Bill, through and from the Government and all Ministers of the Crown equally, and that this therefore being a statutory obligation overrides any prime ministerial prerogative such as the Cabinet Secretary acted upon in the guidance of 23 February? Does the Minister therefore deny that civil servants as Crown servants are legally obliged to provide such information accurately and impartially to all Ministers within their Departments so that the voters are properly informed and empowered to answer the question in the referendum?

[Matthew Hancock]

On the legal details, the 2015 Act also requires the Government to express their view and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires civil servants to support the position of the Government of the day. On that basis, it is right to follow the procedure that was agreed by the Cabinet. The position of the Government is set out; Ministers may disagree with it, but civil servants must support the Government’s position.

EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement

Debate between William Cash and Matt Hancock

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The incentive in the EU is for liberalisation, because overall the analysis of the European Commission and the analysis that we commissioned on the impact on the UK indicated a positive impact on every member state. Of course there are winners and losers, but the overall impact on each part of the EU will be positive. That is what the Commission’s analysis showed.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister be good enough to supply the European Scrutiny Committee with that analysis?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course. I was just about to move on to scrutiny, which came up in many Members’ contributions and is important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about the uncertainty of forecasts and numbers, but I will give the Committee the analysis. The Committee will play an important part in scrutinising the negotiations. Of course, as many Members have said, the negotiations will be led by the Commission, so we must ensure that we do not get in the way of positive developments of substance by publishing things that the Commission would not want us to publish, but within those constraints we will ensure that we engage with the Committee, and indeed with Members on both sides. I think that it would be positive to have debates such as this one as the process goes forward.