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 25 of 45.
“He left the NHS in the grip of private staffing agencies, and since the Francis report a small fortune has had to be spent on private staffing agencies. The figures have gone through the roof on his watch and he has failed to do anything about it. That is why people will not believe that the NHS is safe in his hands.”
“I am grateful that the Secretary of State has intervened because yet again he has got his facts wrong. Am I not correct in saying that in the first two years of the last Parliament the Government cut staffing further from the levels I left by 6,000? [Interruption.] No, he and his predecessor cut nurse places by 6,000 in the first two years of the last Parliament. Separately, they cut nurse training places, leading to a shortfall in nurse recruitment of around 8,000 in the last Parliament. When the Francis report was published, the NHS had fewer staff than it had in 2010 and fewer nurses coming through training. The Secretary of State likes to blame everybody else, but how about taking a bit of blame himself for once?”
“I remember visiting with my hon. Friend. Let us put the facts on the record. The Secretary of State said a moment ago that privatisation was not happening, but it is happening. It is affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents, where cancer scanning has now been privatised. What happened? The contract was, I believe, given to Alliance at £87 million, whereas the NHS had bid £80 million. It was given to the private sector, however, which has now subcontracted the NHS at the same price of £80 million, creaming off £7 million. That is a scandalous waste of NHS resources when the NHS is facing a £2 billion deficit this year.”
“People will draw their own conclusions from what we have just heard. We have seen a staggering deterioration in the NHS finances on the Secretary of State’s watch and a loss of financial grip across the whole system. If we are to see the finances brought under control, it means we will see more of the cuts mentioned a few moments ago. The warning lurking behind the front page of The Daily Telegraph will not be lost on NHS staff today. The Secretary of State knows the NHS is facing very difficult times and this is an early attempt to shift the blame on to NHS staff. Basically, he is saying, “If things go wrong it’s not my fault, it’s yours because I gave you enough money.” It is the classic style of this Government and this Secretary of State in particular: “Get your blame in on somebody else first.””
“My hon. Friend raises an important point. Again, the Secretary of State is quick to lecture about openness and transparency, but a report compiled at huge cost to the public purse by Lord Rose, former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, was not published in the last Parliament even though it was submitted to the Department months before. What possible justification can there be for that? The Secretary of State is avoiding my gaze right now. I would be very interested to hear his answer on why that report was not published, and if he wants to take to his feet now— [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that it was not finished. Well, if you believe that, Mr Speaker, you will believe anything. Even though Lord Rose says it was finished, the Secretary of State sent Lord Rose’s homework back and said it was not good enough.”
“Back then, a financially solvent NHS was turned upside down and, just when the service should have been focusing on making savings, it was instead firing and rehiring staff, abolishing and recreating organisations and making front-line nursing staff redundant. That destabilised the NHS, and it has never recovered since.”
“I must point out to the hon. Lady that Labour had a 20-point lead on the NHS going into the general election, which suggests that the public believed what we were saying about the NHS rather than what the Conservatives were saying. We do support the five-year forward view, and I have said as much, but it needs money now. If that plan is to be made real, it needs investment now. The NHS will not be able to deliver it while it has a £2 billion deficit this year; instead, it will go backwards. It will be unable to make the progress it needs to make. Let us look at why the grip has been lost. This all goes back to the disastrous decision during the last Parliament to ignore the pleas of patients and staff and to force through the biggest-ever reorganisation in the history of the NHS, which nobody wanted and nobody voted for.”
“I shall come to the £8 billion, which was the centrepiece of what the Conservatives were proposing during the election campaign. The simple question was: where is it coming from? They never answered that question. The other question they need to answer is: what are they going to do for the NHS now? The £8 billion was promised for five years’ time, but, as I have been saying, the NHS is facing a crisis this year and next year. An IOU for five years’ time is not much use to the NHS when it faces laying off staff and closing services.”
“They never had a democratic mandate from the people of this country. They never gave their permission for the NHS to be put up for sale in this way. If the hon. Lady’s party were to repeal section 75 of the Act, she could help to create the basis for consensus on the NHS.”
“The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I hope she does a lot more for the NHS than her predecessor did. He caused a huge amount of damage. She is right to say that the NHS is looking for the consensus she describes. NHS staff would hugely value more consensus on the five-year forward view. The problem, as I have said to the Secretary of State before, lies in the privatisation. The Health and Social Care Act 2012, which the hon. Lady’s predecessor took through Parliament, is forcing NHS services out on to the market. As I have said, 40% of those services are now going to private sector organisations, with 40% going to the NHS. The Secretary of State claims that privatisation is not happening, but I am afraid that that is just not correct in any way. If there is to be consensus, the Government should repeal that Act.”
“The NHS enters this Parliament facing one of the most dangerous moments in its history. We will not let him shift the blame on to NHS staff. The party that created the NHS will hold him to account for the damage that he is doing to it right now.”
“People cannot get GP appointments when they need them; they are left ringing the surgery for hour after hour in the morning to be told that nothing is available for days. Ambulances are taking longer to arrive, as we heard at Health questions earlier, A&E remains in permanent crisis mode, mental health services are in crisis, social care is being cut, NHS services are being privatised, and the bill for agency staff has left the NHS in the grip of private agencies. The uncomfortable truth for the Secretary of State is that he is running out of people to blame. This is the NHS that he inherits from himself, and it is heading downhill fast. The onus is now on him to produce a plan to turn round NHS finances, turn round A&E and deliver on the promises he has put before the country.”
“He will make a grave mistake if he tries to introduce seven-day working in the NHS on the backs of NHS staff. Staff who work the most unsocial shift patterns often face the greatest cost. For instance, they have no choice but to use their car if public transport is not running. It would be utterly wrong to pay in part for seven-day working by removing the unsocial hours payment, and we will oppose any attempt by him to do that. Good will is evaporating in the NHS and we cannot afford to lose any more. In conclusion, to listen to the Secretary of State today, we might be forgiven for thinking that everything is fine in the NHS, but it is not. People are waiting longer and longer for cancer treatment to start, and the cancer standard has been missed for the past five consecutive quarters. NHS waiting lists are at a seven-year high.”
“That was caused not just by the ageing society, as the Secretary of State likes to claim, but by his failure to look after that ageing society. Where was the action in the Queen’s Speech on the scandal of 15-minute care visits? The truth is that there is no solution for the NHS without a solution for social care, but the only plan on offer from this Government is more cuts, and those cuts will pile pressure on an already overstretched NHS. This is where the NHS finds itself at the start of this Parliament. The Secretary of State has promised us a seven-day NHS, which we all support. He has promised us 8 am to 8 pm GP opening. How on earth will he deliver those promises when he cannot say where the money is coming from, and when the NHS is facing a huge financial deficit?”
“If that is the case, are we not looking at even deeper cuts to local government and social care in this Parliament than we saw in the last? The Secretary of State cannot keep dodging those questions. The Gracious Speech promised plans to integrate the NHS and social care, but there will be nothing left for the NHS to integrate with if he carries on in this way. The care cuts in the previous Parliament were the root cause of the A&E crisis. Hospital accident and emergency departments have now missed the Government’s lower target for 97 weeks in a row. If they cut social care again, we will have to deal with a full-blown NHS crisis. Attendances at A&E departments increased 10 times faster in the four years after 2010 than in the four years before 2010.”
“Five years ago, I warned the Government that it would be irresponsible to pay for the NHS by raiding social care, but that is exactly what they did. Around a third of a million vulnerable older people lost social care support at home and, unsurprisingly, many of them ended up in hospital. Those cuts to social care had terrible human costs, but they also created huge operational and efficiency problems for the NHS, with record numbers of frail people occupying hospital beds. I say this again to the Secretary of State: if you let social care collapse, it will drag the rest of the NHS down with it. It is a false economy on a grand scale to cut social care to pay for the NHS. Will he be clear today: will he confirm that, if the Government have no plans for new taxes, the money for the NHS will come from cuts to other unprotected Departments?”
“Will he now set out a plan for those £22 billion-worth of efficiencies? People have a right to know how he plans to achieve them. Thirdly, can the Secretary of State tell us where this £8 billion is coming from? During the election, Ministers repeatedly failed to answer this question. The Chancellor was asked about it 18 times on “The Andrew Marr Show”, and his evasion was excruciating. So can the Secretary of State now give us an answer? If he cannot, people will conclude that the Conservatives either knew they were going to break this promise or did not want people to know where the money was going to come from. But people need to know, because the Government could be about to repeat the big spending mistake that they made in the last Parliament.”
“Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), it represents an IOU for five years’ time, but it will not deliver real money now, which is what the NHS needs. Secondly, the £8 billion makes sense only if the NHS manages to make £22 billion of efficiency savings by 2020. That is the five-year plan, as I am sure Members agree. To date, the Secretary of State has not provided any real details of where that £22 billion of savings is going to come from. Many of the people I speak to in the service say that the NHS has already had five years of hard efficiency savings, and that savings on that scale cannot be achieved without causing real harm to services. Does the £22 billion involve cuts to staff? Does it involve service closures? Does it involve more rationing of drugs and treatments?”
“Surely increasing the number of nurses coming through training is the only proper long-term answer to cutting agency spend. If the Secretary of State wants a fresh start, why does he not make an immediate pledge to increase nurse training commissions this year, as I would have done if Labour had won the election? Will he do that? If not, why not? Until he corrects this situation, the NHS will continue to be saddled with long-term agency costs. The truth is that the chickens are coming home to roost. The Secretary of State has left the NHS in the grip of private staffing agencies, and the measures he has announced today will not help. The Secretary of State has also tried to paper over the cracks with a headline promise of £8 billion. There are three problems with that. As I said to the hon.”
“Good will in the NHS is at an all-time low, and it is no wonder that so many disillusioned staff are going to work for agencies to supplement their income. The Secretary of State has woken up to the problem today, and he has promised to take tough action on the agency bill, but will not put a cap on the agency spend in financially troubled trusts that results in those trusts being understaffed, because he will not permit them to recruit the staff they need? He needs to clarify that point. Will he also consider the rates paid on internal banks, and correct the ridiculous situation in which staff have a greater incentive to work for external agencies than for their own employer? Why has there been no mention of staff training?”
“I do not know which election the hon. Gentleman was fighting, but I went round the country and heard stories from patients who were having their treatment rationed. Older people were not being given cataract operations, for example, and were having to consider going private. Varicose vein operations were being rationed. If he never heard those stories, he could not have been listening to his constituents on the doorstep. The NHS is in the grip of private staffing agencies because of the cuts to front-line posts and to nurse training, and because of low morale. This is the Secretary of State who denied NHS staff a 1% pay increase after years of pay freezes. What a kick in the teeth for staff who are working flat out to try to keep the NHS going!”
“Finally, while we cannot bring about a resolution today, does the Minister agree that the best thing we can say to the many thousands of people affected who will be watching these proceedings is that we will work together across the House in the next Parliament to bring a full, fair and final resolution to this terrible injustice?”
“Let me ask the Minister about the one recommendation that the Penrose report makes: that all people in Scotland who had a blood transfusion before 1991 now be tested for hepatitis C. Does the Minister think that recommendation should apply in England? Given that, as my hon. Friend says, Penrose does not answer all the questions, and nor does it apply accountability to those who made decisions in this regard, does the Minister think there now needs to be a further process of inquiry in the next Parliament to produce that accountability?”
“The 2010 to 2015 Parliament will be remembered for some extraordinary work to right historical wrong—on Bloody Sunday, on Hillsborough, on child abuse—but as it comes to an end this Parliament has not made enough progress on perhaps the greatest injustice of them all: the loss and ruination of many thousands of lives through the use of contaminated blood. That is not to say there has not been progress. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and many others across the House who have worked assiduously in this Parliament to keep this issue on the agenda. The Prime Minister was right to apologise yesterday, but my hon. Friend is right that it will have real meaning only if it is followed by efforts to bring truth, accountability and redress.”
“(Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Barts Health NHS Trust being placed into special measures.”
“Given that this is about a failure of NHS management, why is the Department of Health still sitting on the report by Lord Rose on NHS management? Will the Minister give a firm commitment to this House today that it will be published before Parliament is dissolved? This report has been widely described as the worst assessment ever seen from the CQC. It will be seen as a symbol of the decline of the NHS on this Government’s watch, and people are looking now, today, for an urgent plan to turn things around.”
“Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Why were those concerns ignored, leaving Whipps Cross without an adequate management structure? Looking ahead, can the Minister say more about what is now being done to improve management at Whipps Cross, and to reassure local people that their hospital is safe? What immediate steps are being taken to improve staff numbers? On finance, is she aware that the bill for agency staff across the trust has gone up by a huge 44% in the last year alone, and what is she doing to bring that down? It is unsustainable and unaffordable, but it is also damaging standards of patient care on the ward and continuity of care. The inspection took place in November. Why was it published only this week—one day before the Budget?”
“Given that it is a directly managed trust, was a proper assessment made of the reorganisation plans, and was it signed off by Ministers? Why did Ministers overrule the Co-operation and Competition Panel, which advised against the proposed merger and warned of material costs to patients? What action did the TDA, the Department and Ministers take on the warnings raised at the time? The Minister will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer)—I am afraid he has a constituency engagement this morning; otherwise, he would have been here—and, as I understand it, her Cabinet colleague the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), raised specific concerns about the decision to remove the management structure from Whipps Cross Hospital, concerns echoed by my hon.”
“People in east London need to know why, and what is being done to bring their hospital back up to an acceptable standard. Does the Minister accept that, given the seriousness of this issue, they are entitled to be disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here today to respond to these concerns? One of the report’s main conclusions is that the root cause of care problems in the past two years was the reorganisation of the trusts in 2013. It states that “the decision…to remove 220 posts across the trust and down band several hundred more nursing staff had a significant impact on staff morale and has stretched staffing levels in many areas”. These findings raise significant questions for the Department and Ministers.”
“Barts Health NHS Trust is no ordinary hospital trust: it is the largest NHS trust in England, employing more than 14,000 staff and treating patients from all over London and indeed the whole country. Importantly, it is also one of the few trusts directly managed by the Trust Development Authority and the Department of Health. Is it not true that the problems at Whipps Cross have been known for some time and have not just been uncovered this week? Is it not also true that these problems have been allowed to get worse over the past two years, with 208 serious incidents in the last year alone, and that specific warnings have not been acted on? Given all this, is it not a cause for real concern that this trust has become the 20th to be placed in special measures under this Government?”
“I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this point of order. In the Minister’s non-reply to my questions, she inadvertently misled the House. She said that, before the last election, I had blocked a report on Basildon hospital. I wish to place it on the record that I made an oral statement to this House about Basildon hospital and published reports on it on 30 November 2009. I followed that up with a written statement to the House on 5 March 2010. I would be grateful to the Minister if she withdrew her comments.”
“In our view, that reform is much needed, because rather than looking at a sample of deaths to avoid harm, we would look at every single death to learn lessons, which means that every single person matters. Ideally, the review should be cross-party. I hope the Secretary of State feels able to endorse the review I have announced, which will make recommendations that the next Government can act on immediately. Is that not the best way to do justice to the issues that the families have fought to raise, and to ensure that the legacy of their campaign is to ensure that no others go through what they have gone through?”
“The investigation says that those reforms could have raised concerns at Morecambe Bay before they eventually became evident. The second point is that we need a better system for scrutinising deaths in hospital. The report recommends mandatory reporting and investigation of serious incidents of all maternal deaths, stillbirths and unexpected neonatal deaths. Is there not a case to go further, including by looking at moving to a mandatory review of case notes for every death in hospital, and at how we can use a standardised system of case note review to support learning and improvement at every trust? To help to guide the Opposition’s new approach to quality improvement, Professor Nick Black has agreed to advise us and inform the review, which will be concluded by the end of the month.”
“I have thought carefully about how we truly do justice to the families’ campaign and learn the lessons of both this investigation and the Francis report. In my view, the answer is a much more rigorous system of the review of all deaths in the community and in hospitals than currently exists. First, is the reform of death certification and the introduction of a new system of independent medical examination well overdue? The Kirkup report echoes findings that go back as far as Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the Shipman murders, which were repeated recently by Sir Robert Francis in his two reports on Mid Staffordshire. The previous Government legislated for those reforms and made provision for the independent scrutiny by a medical examiner of all deaths that are not referred to a coroner. That has been piloted and proven to be effective.”
“As the report states, there was and remains confusion in the system over who has overall responsibility for monitoring standards, with overlapping regulatory responsibilities. The Opposition support moves to make the CQC more independent, but does the Secretary of State agree that the journey of improvement at the regulator needs to continue, and that there is a need for further reform? Will he ensure that NHS England draws up the recommended protocol on the roles and responsibilities for all parts of the oversight system without delay, and does he agree that the CQC should take prime responsibility? I want to close by focusing on two proposals that I believe get to the heart of the matter before us.”
“Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has today written to the chief executive of NHS England to call for a review of the specific challenges it faces. I hope the Secretary of State will be sympathetic to that call. On the CQC, the role of the regulator has always been to oppose poor care and challenge practice, but it is clear that it failed in its duty in this case. Given what was known, the decision to register the trust without conditions in April 2010 was inexplicable, as was the decision to award foundation trust status later in 2010, as was the decision to inspect emergency care pathways but not maternity services—in so doing, it failed to act on specific warnings.”
“Will he review those decisions in the light of the report and take whatever steps he can to ensure that those who have failed are not rewarded? One of the central findings of the investigation is on the challenges faced by geographically remote and isolated communities in providing health services. The investigation warns of the risks of a closed clinical culture in which “practice can ‘drift’ away from standards and procedures found elsewhere”. Is not the report right to recommend a national review of maternity care and paediatrics in rural and isolated areas, and will the Secretary of State take that forward? Alongside that, there are concerns about the sustainability of the Cumbrian health economy. My hon.”
“After safety, people will rightly want accountability, as the Secretary of State said, not just for the care failings, but for the fact that the problem was kept hidden from the regulators and the public for so long. When information came to light, it was not acted on. Lessons were not learned, and problems were not corrected. The investigation recommends that the trust formally apologises to those affected. The whole House will endorse that call, and will want it done both appropriately and immediately. Further, will the Secretary of State ensure that any further referrals to the GMC and NMC are made without delay? Will he also ensure that any managerial or administrative staff found guilty of wrongdoing are subject to appropriate action? A number of staff have left the trust in recent years, many with pay-offs.”
“The report identifies the root cause of the failures as a dysfunctional local culture and a failure to follow national clinical guidance. There are suggestions in the report that that culture has not entirely disappeared. The report finds: “we…heard from some of the long-standing clinicians that relations with midwives had not improved and had possibly deteriorated over the last two to three years…we saw and heard evidence that untoward incidents with worryingly similar features to those seen previously had occurred as recently as mid-2014.” I am sure the fact that problems have been acknowledged means that there has already been significant improvement, but will the Secretary of State say more about those findings, and about what steps he is taking to ensure that the trust now has the right staff and safety culture?”
“This report finally gives the families the answers that they should have received many years ago. It explains in detail what went wrong, the appalling scale of the failings and, as the Secretary of State said, the opportunities missed to identify those failings and put them right. I echo the Secretary of State’s praise for Dr Bill Kirkup, his investigation team and the panel that assisted them. The report’s analysis is thorough, and its recommendations are powerful but proportionate. The Opposition support all the recommendations made today. I understand that the Secretary of State will want to take time to consider each individually, but he can rely on our full support in introducing them at the earliest opportunity. People’s first concern will be whether local services are safe today.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his well-judged statement, and echo entirely the sentiments he expressed. Families in Barrow and the wider Cumbria area were badly let down by their local hospital and by the NHS as a whole. The Secretary of State was right to apologise to them on behalf of the Government and the NHS, and today I do the same on behalf of the previous Government. It is hard to imagine what it must be like to lose a child or partner in such circumstances, but to have that suffering intensified by the actions of the NHS is inexcusable. Bereaved families should never again have to fight in the way that these families have had to fight to get answers. The fact that they have found the strength and courage to do so will benefit others in years to come, and I pay tribute to them all, and particularly to James Titcombe.”
“Gentleman of our full support in bringing accountability and redress for the victims, and in ensuring that whatever can be done across the Floor of the House is done, so that these kind of events can never take place again in our national health service.”
“That is the context in which the NHS will operate for some considerable time and, in that context, there will be a need for a greater number of checks to ensure that those participating in the volunteering or the fundraising are appropriate people for roles in any hospital organisation. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the vetting and barring scheme is up to that task, so that we leave no loopholes for convicted paedophiles or sex offenders to exploit. In conclusion, these are painful, appalling and sickening events that are a dark chapter in the history of the NHS and indeed of our country. We applaud the Secretary of State and the Government for their commitment and thoroughness in facing up to these events of our past. I can assure the right hon.”
“There is a concern that some offenders are being left off the list or that there is now a limit to the number of roles that offenders can be checked against, so that the potential for offenders to gain access to vulnerable people has increased. Will the Secretary of State look again at the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, and ensure that every possible step is taken to close any possible loophole that could be exploited by a sex offender? As Kate Lampard rightly said, hospitals in the coming era are going to have to be more reliant on the work of volunteers and on fundraising.”
“I understand why the Government would want to consult—because of the effect such a requirement could have on the working of an organisation. I want to push the right hon. Gentleman a little further and say that this consultation should not be open-ended, but a consultation leading to a firm commitment to legislate at the earliest opportunity—if not in this, in the next Parliament. I believe that that is the growing will of this House and I believe it will be the growing will of the next one. On vetting and barring, the Secretary of State made some welcome proposals, and Kate Lampard has highlighted the need for a new focus on this area. There is a concern that changes to the vetting and barring scheme in this Parliament have significantly weakened its ability to protect children from convicted sex offenders.”
“While we welcome the action the Secretary of State is taking to support NHS whistleblowers and strengthen their position, we cannot complacently think that this will be enough in these kinds of situations. On Monday, the Government voted against the new legal requirement for those working in schools, hospitals and child care settings to report to the police child abuse in institutional settings. The purpose of such a requirement would be to make sure that no professional ever felt the protection of the reputation of the institution should take priority over the protection of a child or pursuing the truth. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about this today. He said that there will now be a process of consultation on a proposed mandatory reporting duty. That is indeed a step forward, which I welcome.”
“To quote a chilling conclusion from the Lampard and Marsden report: “The evidence we have gathered indicated that there are many elements of the Savile story that could be repeated in future.” We know that a child cancer specialist from Addenbrooke’s was recently convicted for sexual offences against vulnerable boys as young as eight who were in his care. Even though the world was very different in the 1970s and 1980s, it is impossible to read these reports without wondering how so many people could have known what was going on, yet felt they could not do anything about it. It must never again be the case that a member of staff should be made to feel unable to speak up for fear of “letting the hospital down”. They must feel fully supported at all times in reporting any act of abuse against anybody in the place in which they work.”
“In his last statement, he said that he would continue to explore the possibility of compensating victims using Savile’s estate to fund any claims. Will he update the House on that work? Is the value of Savile’s estate anywhere near enough to provide adequate compensation to his many victims? Has the Secretary of State made any judgment about whether public funding is needed to help compensate them? Today’s news will distress everyone directly affected. What steps are being taken to offer them counselling and other support? Turning directly to the “Lessons Learned” report, while these appalling events come from a very different era, it would be a major mistake for the House or anybody reading the reports to think they have no relevance to today.”
“I do not expect the Secretary of State today to answer these points in detail, and I welcome what he said in facing up to the findings, but does he agree that they point to the need for a more formal inquiry process involving senior people from that time—senior people in the hospitals concerned, senior people in the Department of Health and former Ministers? Knowing what we now know, we cannot simply leave this here. Victims must have accountability. That must be our shared goal across the House. Alongside accountability, Savile’s victims need help. As the Secretary of State said, many lives have been damaged by what happened and will never recover. Nothing can be done to heal their pain, but there are things that could help them.”
“We already knew that he was appointed by Edwina Currie to the taskforce that ran Broadmoor between 1988 and 1989, but today’s Stoke Mandeville report states: “From 1980 Savile’s relationship with Stoke Mandeville Hospital underwent a significant change when he was appointed by Government Ministers…to fundraise for…the new National Spinal Injuries Centre”. The “Lessons Learned” report concludes: “In appointing Savile to these roles, and in allowing him the licence and free rein he had in exercising these roles, Ministers and/or civil servants either overrode or failed to observe accepted governance processes.” That extremely serious finding needs to be acted upon.”