Andy Burnham
Prime Minister · MP for Makerfield · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“The right hon. Lady mentions leadership. Let me tell her and the whole House where Britain is showing leadership. There have been Conservative politicians at this Dispatch Box—Labour politicians, too—for decades who have talked about the importance of the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.”
“I cannot comment today on quasi-judicial decisions, but we will take a pragmatic approach to oil and gas, as I have said before at the Dispatch Box. Let us get to the heart of this question, as the right hon. Lady invites me to do. What is the right way to fund defence and, yes, bring the welfare budget down?”
“I do not think the right hon. Lady is on strong ground when it comes to defence spending. It was 2.5% of GDP when the last Labour Government left office. It was 2.3% of GDP when the Government she was in left office. It is now set to be 2.7% in the next year.”
“This Chancellor, of all Chancellors, will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces and back our defence investment plan. This Government’s commitment to the defence of this country is absolute. We have taken the strongest possible stance in supporting President Zelensky and Ukraine.”
“I think there are many people watching Prime Minister’s questions across the south of England who would now like Mr Speaker to be demoted in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. [Interruption.] This is very thin ice for a Leigh Leopards supporter to be on.”
“I remember well my visit to Stourbridge; it will not leave me, actually, because of the devastation, and the loss of everything in a moment for so many families. My hon. Friend’s support for them was really visible on the day, and the community is clearly very strong; that was evident.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,246 lines we hold for Andy Burnham, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 45.
“Personally speaking, in my view those people and children should not be in detention. We need to take a look at how this country has approached these issues over a number of years. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on a cross-party basis, to address those issues. That is what we should do. My final concern with the Bill relates to vulnerable children. [ Interruption. ] These are important issues and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) would do well to listen to them before rushing into the Lobby to vote for the proposals without any evidence to support them. Clause 34 proposes to remove support from families with children. Let me be honest—that was piloted by our Government, but it was rightly abandoned because of the effects it had.”
“I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has introduced his remarks and for what he has said. He talked about right to rent. Does he agree that, in the absence of any evidence from the Government on the pilot, we have to accept what has been produced by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants? As I said in my speech, its findings are extremely troubling. If we accept those findings, it is impossible to support the Bill tonight because of its potential to cause widespread discrimination against British citizens too.”
“As well as providing him with a little more time, I would like my right hon. Friend to consider the effect on his constituency and mine of the changes to the immigration rules that the Government want to introduce with respect to earnings. This could force a lot of nurses currently working in the NHS to leave the country. Nurse training has been cut and the NHS is over-reliant on agency staff; now the Government are about to force thousands of nurses to go back. Does he agree with me that we need a rethink and a change of heart on this issue?”
“On behalf of everybody on the Opposition Benches, may I echo the Home Secretary’s tribute to Police Constable David Phillips, who died working to keep the people of Merseyside safe? I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending a message of condolence to his family and of gratitude for his service to the public. Today, the former head of the Supreme Court, three Law Lords, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, five retired Court of Appeal judges, a president of the European Court of Human Rights and 100 QCs who represent the Government have described the Home Secretary’s response to the refugee crisis as “deeply inadequate”. Why does the Home Secretary think that she is right and all of them are wrong?”
“Let me tell the Home Secretary why I repeated the question. Could not the public have legitimately expected the Home Secretary to answer a question about the biggest humanitarian crisis since the second world war? Her response reveals her fixed mind on this issue, which is simply not good enough because she is not responding to the unfolding nature of the crisis. Her position is flawed for one reason: she is trying, out of convenience, to draw a false distinction between refugees still in the region and those who have arrived in Europe, whom she describes as the wealthiest, fittest and strongest. I say to her: look at the TV pictures today; these people are not wealthy, fit or strong. They are desperate and they need our help. Is it not time to stop digging in, show some humanity and reach out a helping hand?”
“Finally, we have heard today about the deployment of HMS Richmond to the Mediterranean, with a specific role to board ships and intercept people traffickers. Although we welcome that development, will the Home Secretary say more about how it will work in practice and whether it will work as part of an international effort to disrupt those gangs? In conclusion, this is possibly the biggest crisis of its kind in our lifetime, and the way in which we respond to it will define us as a generation. We need to be ready to do more, if the necessity demands, and reach out to our European neighbours whose challenges are greatest, and we must honour our country’s long tradition of providing refuge to those who need it.”
“What is her view on Germany’s decision to reintroduce border controls, and what implications does she think that will have for the Schengen agreement? Will the Home Secretary say more about the proposal for removal centres in transit countries in Africa? She says they must become operational immediately; when does she expect that to happen? Is the approach of moving people back to transit centres consistent with the principle set out in the Dublin convention, whereby people have the right to claim asylum in the country of arrival? Is the EU in discussion with other countries across the middle east to increase what they are doing? Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are doing what they can, but surely they need more help from other, wealthier countries in the region.”
“Although I understand the Government’s reluctance to take part in the proposed quota system, surely an offer of some help would live up to the historic tradition our country has always had. If the Government were to provide that help, would not that only build good will and help the renegotiation discussions in advance of the forthcoming European referendum? The Home Secretary will know that Chancellor Merkel has called for a summit of European leaders to broker a solution. Will the Home Secretary today commit the Government to a positive response to that call? One of the problems the summit will have to address is the management of borders within Europe. Does the Home Secretary agree that the ability to move without checks can leave people in the grip of people traffickers?”
“The expert help is good, but it goes no way to meeting the scale of the emergency Greece faces. Although we understand that the Government do not want to give an incentive for people to travel across the Mediterranean, they cannot deny the reality on the ground in Europe right now. The Home Secretary describes the arrivals as the fittest and the wealthiest. Is not that a dangerous generalisation? Does it adequately describe the people—the desperate parents carrying children at the Hungarian border and the children sleeping on the streets in Greece? Is the Government’s decision not to take any refugees from Europe sustainable from a moral and practical point of view?”
“With that in mind, is the Home Secretary really standing by the description of the Government’s response to date as adequate? Does she accept that it must be kept under constant review and, if necessary, increased? Let me turn to the European response and the Justice and Human Affairs Council meeting on Monday. Such is the sheer scale of the challenge, the Home Secretary is right to say that it can be met only through a co-ordinated European response. Although she was right to call for the meeting, it is disappointing, to say the least, that the UK Government failed to table any practical or positive proposals to help our European neighbours. Can we really leave Greece, with all the other economic problems it faces, to cope with the situation alone?”
“Are they actively turning those offers into practical proposals and, given the concerns that councils have expressed about funding, is she working to get a better funding arrangement for them? Will the Home Secretary say more about the situation in Calais? How many of the people in camps there have had their status assessed and what discussions is she having with her French counterpart to progress that situation? The big question, of course, on the Government’s response to date is whether it is in any way commensurate with the scale of the crisis. David Miliband, chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, said earlier this week that the UK Government’s commitment on an annual basis matches only the numbers arriving in Greece on the beaches of Lesbos every single day.”
“The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are right to say that the UK has set the lead on aid spending and we must urge other European countries to match it. Although the appointment earlier this week of a Minister with specific responsibilities is a welcome and sensible development, we now need clarity on the headline figures. The Government have committed to 4,000 refugees a year, although the Prime Minister has suggested it could be more this year. What is their latest assessment of how many will arrive this year and how many does the Home Secretary expect to arrive before Christmas? What discussions has she had with councils about the practical arrangements? More than 50 have offered to help.”
“More than half a million migrants have arrived at the EU’s borders this year, about double the number that came in 2014. Terrible images of families and children in great distress continue to fill our television screens. Earlier this week, four babies, six boys and five girls were among 34 victims who lost their lives after their boat capsized between Turkey and a small Greek island. With winter approaching and temperatures in many of the countries affected about to drop, an urgent solution is needed, so may I begin with the Government response to date? The measures announced last week—in response, it has to be said, to huge public pressure—were, of course, welcome as far as they go.”
“I thank the Home Secretary for updating the House on the refugee crisis and welcome the further measures she has announced today. We have worked together well in the past and although I will of course provide real challenge in this role, I shall do so constructively at all times. May I also take this opportunity to praise my predecessor and friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)? She showed great leadership in forcing the Government to face up to the scale of the crisis and I am sure that the whole House wish her well in her continuing role on these matters. Unfolding across Europe and the north of Africa is a humanitarian crisis on a scale not seen since the second world war.”
“People will therefore be disappointed that any decisions on future support appear to have been postponed until the spending review. Will the Minister put a timeframe on when the Government will make their next statement about a full and final settlement? Given the widespread concerns about current arrangements, does he acknowledge that the longer this goes on, the longer we leave in place a system that is not working and leaves victims going cap in hand for support, which only adds to their sense of injustice? We congratulate the Government on their progress in recent months, but now is the time for a resolution. This injustice has gone on long enough. Further delay adds insult and injury to that injustice. A full, fair and final resolution is now required.”
“Will he work to ensure that the funding is made available to victims this year, as I think that is what people want to hear from him today? On disclosure, I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to releasing additional documents, but does the Minister accept that alongside that release we need a process to help families understand those documents and finally to get to the full truth of what went wrong? Will he commit, at the very least, to a panel on the Hillsborough model, or to a public inquiry, to provide a full commentary on the extent to which disclosure on this matter would add to public understanding of the scandal? Finally, although no amount of money can ever fully make up for what happened, we owe those still living with the consequences the dignity of a lasting settlement.”
“The Prime Minister’s apology in March marked an important moment on the journey for justice, and we welcomed his commitment to respond to the Penrose report “as a matter of priority.” We do not doubt the sincerity of that commitment, but does the Minister understand the disappointment that people felt when instead of the promised full statement, a written statement was released at 2 pm on a Friday afternoon, which failed to answer the key questions? The Minister failed to set a clear timetable for when the £25 million promised by the Prime Minister will be made available to those currently receiving support, and I think I heard him imply that it might go into the next financial year of 2016-17. May I press him further?”
“I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who has been tireless in pursuit of answers for the victims of contaminated blood. Her powerful words today will have spoken for many people across the country. This scandal is one of the worst injustices this country has seen. Thousands died, and thousands of families were destroyed through the negligence of public bodies. For years, the response from Governments of all colours to the victims could be described at best as grudging, and at worst as dismissive, and it falls to this Parliament to resolve today to end this injustice once and for all.”
“I appointed Robert Francis to begin the work of looking at what went wrong at Mid Staffs. Where the Secretary of State seeks to build on these constructive changes, we will support him, but he will not achieve his goals by provoking confrontation with doctors or playing politics with patient safety.”
“Gentleman’s commitment is the failure to bring in a Bill on professional regulation. This was an important recommendation of the Francis report and the continued delay in implementing this proposal is putting patients at risk and preventing regulators from doing their job. Will the Secretary of State now commit to legislating at the earliest opportunity for the Law Commission’s reforms? These are extremely serious matters and I do not believe that some of the Secretary of State’s more political comments today were appropriate, nor do I believe they will build the consensus that will be needed across this House to deliver these important changes. Labour introduced more transparency into the NHS with the establishment of independent regulation and the inspection of hospitals.”
“Gentleman will know that there have been a number of appalling examples of poor care in recent times at Orchid View, Oban Court and Winterbourne View, and these scandals were exposed only when undercover reporters infiltrated the care home. Will he look seriously at the idea of an independent body to receive complaints from NHS staff and social care staff so that they are not faced with the problem of always going to their employer if they are to blow the whistle? I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say about the Kirkup report and his acceptance in full of its recommendations. We, too, think of the families affected by the failures at Morecambe Bay. I supported steps to improve the regulation of midwives, but the big question mark over the right hon.”
“The announcement today appears to be unfunded and it will not escape the House’s attention that the 2010 Conservative manifesto also promised to deliver seven-day services. The Secretary of State has a lot of convincing to do if he expects people to believe him this time. In a statement last week in another place, Lord Prior, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for NHS productivity, said he was establishing an independent inquiry into extending charges in the NHS. This has sounded alarm bells among many patient groups. Will the Secretary of State say more about the terms of reference for this independent inquiry and when it will proceed with its work? The Francis “Freedom to speak up” report contained a number of important recommendations to foster a more open culture and we support his work to implement them. The right hon.”
“Has the Secretary of State looked at the detail of the Chancellor’s announcement on pay for NHS staff? Will he tell the House what effect he believes this deal could have on staff numbers and retention? The Secretary of State said very little about how he will fund seven-day services, but given that the NHS is struggling to fund weekday services, it is likely to need significant investment over the next five years, over and above funding attached to the five-year forward view. Can he confirm that the money allocated to fund the five-year forward view does not include seven-day working? That is not specifically mentioned in the “Five Year Forward View”. If so, what extra funding will be made available specifically to deliver seven-day working, and when will this funding be available?”
“The British Medical Association said: “Today’s announcement is nothing more than a wholesale attack on doctors to mask the fact that for two years the Government has failed to outline any concrete proposals for introducing more seven-day hospital services.” Will the Secretary of State take care to avoid provocative statements such as “Declaring war” and will he rethink the manner in which he is pursuing these negotiations? Talk of imposing deals at this stage is not helpful; it is premature and it would be better to proceed in a more constructive manner. Staff across the entire hospital system—not just doctors —will be needed to run these services, but the Government confirmed only last week that many of them will face another five years of pay cuts. In total, that will amount to a decade of pay cuts.”
“Of course that is an appalling statistic, but is there not a risk of implementing seven-day services by simply spreading existing resources more thinly? A recent study published in “Health Economics” concluded: “There is as yet no clear evidence that 7-day services will reduce weekend deaths or can be achieved without increasing weekday deaths.” Will the Secretary of State tell us on what evidence he has based his announcement and, crucially, what steps he is taking to guard against what the study warns could be an increase in weekday deaths? If the Secretary of State wants to make changes on this scale, it is vital that he works in partnership with NHS staff. I gently say to him that briefing headlines such as “Declaring war on doctors” have not got us off on the right foot, as doctors are already feeling worn out and put upon.”
“His remarks contain no acknowledgment that the NHS right now is in a very fragile condition. It has gone backwards, not forwards, in recent times. A&E is in crisis, and primary care services are overwhelmed. There is a shortage of staff and an over-reliance on agency workers. Staff are demoralised and worn out. If he does this in the wrong way, many may walk away and that would make matters even worse. Given all that, it is not immediately clear how seven-day services can be delivered in the timeframe he has set out without significantly impacting on the rest of the NHS. The Secretary of State said that around 6,000 people lose their lives every year because we do not have a proper seven-day service.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Let me say at the beginning that I support much of what he said. I will focus my remarks on his plan for seven-day working, and then touch on some of the other issues he raised. Ensuring that our health services are there for everyone whenever they are needed—be that a weekday or a weekend—should be our shared goal across this House for a 21st-century national health service. Illnesses do not stop at the weekend and nor should our NHS. Although we support the principle of what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with seven-day working, and will work with him where possible, I urge some caution in the manner in which he is attempting to drive through these changes.”
“Ten years ago, this great city lived through one of the darkest days in its history. Our thoughts today are with all those who were affected and we pay tribute to the heroic staff of London’s NHS, who did so much to help them. The latest GP patient survey is important for the simple reason that it covers the first full year of the Government’s GP access challenge fund. The results do not make good reading for the Secretary of State. The percentage of patients dissatisfied with their surgery’s opening hours has increased and patients found it harder to get appointments last year than the year before. Will the Secretary of State admit that his policies are simply not working and that GP services are getting worse on his watch?”
“People who have been ringing surgeries this morning unable to get appointments will not be convinced by what they have just heard. The truth is that the disarray in the Secretary of State’s primary care policy goes much deeper. Not only has he made it harder for people to get a convenient appointment, but he now wants to charge people who miss the appointments they are able to get. We all want to reduce waste, but there are many reasons why people do not turn up, including family emergencies. That is presumably why No. 10 slapped him down. He will have worried people, so for the avoidance of doubt, will he today confirm that he will not return to that idea in this Parliament?”
“He should have been here to do Members who are affected by this announcement the courtesy of giving them answers, and I ask his junior Minister to relay that to him directly after the debate.”
“Can the Minister assure us that patients will be consulted before any changes go ahead? Is not the fact that NHS is taking drastic powers over whole swathes of the NHS in three counties a sign of the failure of the Government’s plans for local commissioning, and evidence of five years of failure of Tory health policies? Is it not evidence that care failures are more likely, not less likely, on the Tories’ watch? This is no way to run a health service, and no way to treat Parliament. The Minister, along with the Secretary of State, is trying to shift the blame for things that have gone wrong in the NHS on their watch—for problems that are of their making. We will not let the Secretary of State do that.”
“Are there enough staff, and will work be undertaken immediately to deal with staff shortages? Are plans being drawn up to close A and E departments, or other services, as part of this process? Could it mean mergers between organisations, and job losses? We welcome action that means taking a broader view of challenged health economies—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has long called for such action—but what will the new regime mean for local NHS bodies? Will it be possible for NHS England to overrule them? The House will recall the last occasion on which the Secretary of State tried to take sweeping powers to close health services over the heads of local people in south London. It did not end well; indeed, it ended with his being defeated in the High Court.”
“As we have just heard, this announcement has far-reaching implications for people in Essex, Cumbria and Devon. It was being finalised on Tuesday, when the House was engaged in a full day’s debate on the national health service, yet there was not one single mention of it during the debate. What are we to make of that, and why was the Secretary of State not here to make this announcement to the House? Why does he think that it is always more important to make announcements in television studios or to outside conferences than to Members of Parliament in the House of Commons? That is not acceptable. People in Cumbria, Essex and Devon will be worried about what the Minister has just said, and what it means for health services in their areas. First things first. Can the Minister confirm that services in those areas are safe and sustainable?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for testing your patience; I would not have done so were it not an important matter. During the previous exchange, news reached me that the Secretary of State is in Liverpool announcing the scrapping of the 18-week target, presumably because the Government know they can no longer meet it. I was not in business questions, but I am led to believe that the Leader of the House said that Ministers should always make major announcements to this House, and that he had indeed reminded them of their duty to do so. What advice could you give me about making sure that this edict sticks? Before the Minister leaves his place, should he not confirm to this House whether the 18-week target is indeed to be scrapped?”
“On behalf of everyone on the Opposition Benches, I echo the Secretary of State’s warm tribute to Charles Kennedy. I cannot have been the only person this morning wondering why politics always seems to lose the people it needs most. Charles was warm, generous, genuine and principled. We will miss him greatly. We send our love and deepest sympathy to his family. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reappointment, but I commiserate with him on the financial position in the NHS that he inherits from himself. He told The Daily Telegraph today that the NHS has enough money, but that is not true. The deficit in the NHS last year was nearly £1 billion. Can he tell the House what the projected deficit is for the whole of the NHS for this year?”
“It is a new Parliament, but there are the same non-answers from the Secretary of State. He did not answer; he never does. I will give him the answer: NHS providers are predicting the deficit to double this year to more than £2 billion. Why has financial discipline been lost on his watch? It is because early in the previous Parliament the Government cut 6,000 nursing posts. They cut nurse training places and, when the Francis report came out, they left hospitals with nowhere to turn other than private staffing agencies. The Bill for agency nurses has gone up by 150% on his watch. He even admitted on the radio this morning that it was a mess of their making. Will he now apologise for this monumental waste of NHS resources and get our hospitals out of the grip of private staffing agencies by recruiting the 20,000 nurses that the NHS needs?”
“There is a big difference between the Secretary of State’s view of the health service and mine—he believes in a market; I do not. It is as simple as that. But I want to correct him on something. He just said that privatisation was not happening, but I will not let him stand at that Dispatch Box and claim that black is white any more. Figures show that as many contracts are going to private sector organisations as to NHS organisations. Will he confirm that that is the case and stop giving wrong information to the people of this country?”
“The right hon. Gentleman said right there that there is a role for the independent sector and that he is neutral about it but wants to see it increase. Then he says that privatisation is not happening. Is he trying to take everybody for mugs? He needs to come to this Dispatch Box and be quite clear about what is happening. Section 75 of his Health and Social Care Act 2012 does not give discretion to doctors; it forces NHS services out on to the open market. That is why we are seeing privatisation proceeding at a pace and scale never seen before in the NHS.”
“I am sure that the victims and their families will see his appointment as a hugely encouraging sign. Let me also say to him that if he wishes to continue to pursue that issue with the same zeal during the current Parliament, he will have my full support. Our thoughts are with our Liberal Democrat colleagues today, and I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), although he has now left the Chamber. He had an obvious commitment to mental health, even if his words were not always matched by Government action. That said, one of the great achievements of the last Parliament was the profound change that we all witnessed in the public and parliamentary debate about mental health. For the first time, Members of the House spoke openly and honestly about their own mental health problems.”
“During Health questions, I congratulated the Secretary of State on his reappointment, and I do so again now, but I hope he will not be too offended if I point out gently that it was not universally welcomed in the NHS. In fact, as far as reappointments go, his makes the recent one at FIFA look positively popular. We wish him well, of course, but he has a lot of work to do to regain the trust of staff throughout the NHS, and he should not underestimate the scale of the task. I welcome all the new Health Ministers, but I particularly welcome the new Minister for Community and Social Care, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He did outstanding work during the last Parliament in seeking justice for the victims of contaminated blood, alongside other Members in all parts of the House.”
“For the last five years, we have been treated to repeated lectures from Ministers about the importance of sound management of the public finances. That is the signature of this Government, or so they like to claim. Today I want to put that claim to the test in respect of the NHS, and to look in detail at the Government’s stewardship of NHS finances. The Government like to talk about the deficit, but they do not often mention the very large deficit they have created at the heart of the NHS. We will put that right today, and consider the promises they made in the run-up to the election: local promises to reopen A&E departments, and national promises to deliver GP opening hours of 8 am to 8 pm and seven-day NHS working. We will ask how all that can be delivered, given that the NHS finances are deteriorating fast.”
“It would have had cross-party support, and would have enabled the regulators to get on with the job of protecting and safeguarding the public from poor care. The failure to introduce such a Bill means that there is now no prospect of reducing the time it takes to deal with complaints, which, at present, is typically 15 months from start to finish. Jackie Smith, chief executive of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, has said that she is “deeply disappointed” by the omission, and that it is a “major setback” to the response to the Francis report. Can the Secretary of State explain why no such Bill was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, and tell us when it can be expected? We need a professional regulatory regime that is modern, up to date and fit for purpose. The issue on which I now intend to focus is finance.”
“Given the nature of modern living and the stress and insecurity that we all have to absorb, mental health will remain the issue of our times, and we shall need public policy to match. The last Parliament made huge progress in raising mental health issues, but this Parliament needs to translate those words into action. Progress was also made on patient safety, and the Secretary of State deserves credit for that, but, again, it is important for the momentum not to be lost in this Parliament. In that context, there appears to be a significant omission from the Gracious Speech. Improving the regulation of health professionals was a central recommendation that emerged from the Francis report, and a Bill to modernise professional regulation has long been anticipated.”
“As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) pointed out a moment ago, NHS services are often not there for young people in particular when they need them, but we must also ask ourselves why people end up in that position in the first place. We have seen, in some of the public policy decisions that have been made in recent times, a failure to understand how changes can affect people’s mental health. The work capability assessment, for instance, did not pay sufficient regard to mental health, and that needs to change if we are to give people proper support in this Parliament. Let me, at the start of the new Parliament, urge all new and all re-elected Members to bear in mind the momentum on mental health that was built in the last Parliament, and to do everything they can to build on it.”
“The Conservatives are fond of saying that we did not fix the roof when the sun was shining, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we did fix the leaking roofs of hospitals and GP surgeries that they left behind, and we had to invest a significant amount to do so. When we came to office in 1997, more than half the NHS estate predated the NHS itself, and people remember those days. We had to put that right: we had to rebuild substantial portions of the NHS simultaneously by means of the PFI, which, I might add, was inherited from the Major Government.”
“I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I remember: I remember NHS waiting lists in 2010 being at their lowest ever level; I remember public satisfaction with the NHS being at its highest ever level; and I also remember leaving behind a financially solvent national health service. Let us look at it today: NHS waiting lists at a six-year high; cancer patients waiting longer for their treatment to start; A&E in crisis; and, as I said, a £1 billion deficit, and rising, at the heart of the NHS. That is the Secretary of State’s record, and a little more humility might not go amiss.”
“People will not forget the time he accused hospitals of coasting when they were in the middle of an A&E crisis, but even by his standards this was a staggering piece of spin. The simple fact is that the NHS does not have enough money. In fact it is seriously short of money. It is facing a £1 billion deficit this year, with two thirds of hospitals in the red, which marks a major deterioration from what the Conservatives inherited in 2010, when there was a surplus of over £500 million.”
“My hon. Friend anticipates me, because this is precisely the issue I am coming on to. Under the Lansley reorganisation, workforce planning went out of the window, and that led to today’s huge workforce crisis and hospitals being in the grip of private staffing agencies. That is the single biggest driver of the NHS deficit that I mentioned a moment ago, and I will talk about that shortly. The Secretary of State gave us a pious warning about temperate language, yet this is the Secretary of State who today on the front page of The Daily Telegraph is saying that the NHS has enough cash and now must deliver: “the time for debating whether or not” it has enough money is over, it “now needs to deliver its side of the bargain”. Not for the first time, that is a statement by the Secretary of State that will have caused jaws to drop across the NHS.”
“The NHS is now facing a £2 billion deficit this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said earlier, that will mean cuts to beds, to staff and to services.”
“That is exactly the point. When we are in a crisis like this, short-term, knee-jerk cuts are made, which make the situation wrong in the long term. When I raised these deficits in the election campaign, the Secretary of State said I was scaremongering, but just two weeks after the election the truth emerged. [Interruption.] He says I was, but we now know the truth. There was an £822 million deficit in the NHS last year, a sevenfold increase on the previous year. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says he is dealing with it. That is not good enough. That is appalling mismanagement of the NHS. Financial grip in the NHS has been surrendered on this Secretary of State’s watch, and things are looking even worse this year. Far from scaremongering, these issues are real and should have been debated at the last election.”