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 44 of 45.
“Will he act to stop details of contracts under his “any qualified provider” regime from being kept secret from local people under “commercial confidentiality”? The truth is that patients are being shut out as his friends in the private sector fill their boots. In the weekend’s papers, this mandate was called the first contract with the NHS—the new language of the coalition NHS, in which competition and contracts replace care and compassion. Yes, the Secretary of State has today published a new mandate, but we needed a change of direction. The Government have put the NHS on a fast track to fragmentation. Today, they have unfairly and unrealistically raised expectations on a battered NHS, thinking they have cleverly contracted out responsibility to the national Commissioning Board. I have news for them.”
“The Secretary of State promises to implement the Labour amendment to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to ensure “parity of esteem” between physical and mental health. However, the opposite is happening as the NHS reverts to its default position and places mental health services first in line for cuts. Will he confirm that mental health spending was cut in real terms last year, and what will he do to reverse that? He says he wants a transparency revolution, but across the country local people are being shut out of crucial decisions affecting local NHS services. If he believes in “No decision about me without me,” will he today commit to consult Greater Manchester patients with long-term conditions on whether they want ambulance services to be run by a bus company?”
“If the Secretary of State really wants to help people with dementia, when will he act to stop this scandal? Let me turn to mortality rates. Over the past decade, the deaths from heart attacks fell by 50% in men and 53% in women, and the NHS achieved the biggest drop in cancer deaths among the 10 most developed nations. It is widely accepted that the clinical networks established by the previous Government played a significant role in that success. Indeed, the NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, called them “an NHS success story”. Why, then, is the Secretary of State proceeding with brutal cuts to cancer, heart and stroke networks? Surely the best way to meet the ambitions he has set out is to build on that track record of success, not destroy it.”
“Last year, there were 12,000 fewer cataract operations than in 2009-10. Older people were told that they could have an operation in one eye but not in two. The Government boast about shorter waiting lists, but that is because people cannot get on those lists in the first place. A postcode lottery is running riot and there is nothing in this mandate to stop it. The Secretary of State’s promises on dementia will be nothing more than hollow words until he faces up to the crisis in council budgets for adult social care. Across England, older people and carers are facing a desperate struggle as council services such as home helps are cut to the bone. Millions of people are facing ever higher care charges—cruel coalition dementia taxes—as councils are forced to put up the cost of meals on wheels and other services.”
“A full £1 billion has been spent on redundancy packages for managers, more than 1,000 of whom have received six-figure payouts while 6,000 nurses get P45s. That is the scandalous reality of the coalition Government NHS. Will the Secretary of State confirm that a single payoff of £324,000 was made to the former chief executive of NHS Bolton? How would he care to justify that to NHS staff in Bolton who are losing their jobs? There could be no clearer illustration of a Government whose priorities are completely wrong. Let me turn to some of the specific points set out by the Secretary of State. First, he makes welcome commitments on care for older people. If that is his priority, however, why are there no instructions in this mandate to stop commissioners from imposing restrictions on essential operations for older people?”
“Today, people will have been hoping for a mandate for common sense to restore sanity to an NHS that is in danger of losing the plot, and for instructions to protect the front line. Well, they will have been disappointed. The Secretary of State glosses over finance, but let me give the House the facts. He and his predecessor promised to reinvest all efficiency savings in the NHS front line— [ Interruption. ] Yes, they say, yet we learn that £3 billion of NHS money has been swiped back by the Treasury. When will the Secretary of State stand up to the Treasury and keep promises that the Government have made to the NHS? While the NHS front line takes a battering, the Government keep throwing money at a back-office reorganisation that nobody wanted.”
“The Secretary of State has just reeled off an impressive wish list, but people across the NHS will be asking a simple question: how on earth can he ask the NHS to do more, when we learn today that 61,000 jobs have been lost or are at risk in the NHS? His statements are dangerously at odds with the reality on the ground and risk raising unrealistic expectations. Across England, services are under severe pressure with ambulances queuing outside A and E, patients left on trolleys in corridors for hours on end, and increasing numbers of A and E and ward closures. No wonder nurses’ leaders today warn that the NHS is “sleepwalking into a crisis.” To listen to the Secretary of State, however, it is as if none of that is happening. A toxic mix of reorganisation and real-terms cuts risks plunging the NHS into a tailspin.”
“Like the BBC, the NHS is one of the country’s great unifying forces—a service that sees no differences, treating people, patients and staff with the same respect, wherever they come from, whatever their background. The “N” in NHS should be cherished, but instead it is coming under ideological attack.”
“Friends and I have called this debate with a clear purpose: to build support across the House for a health service that remains national in character, and to send the clearest of signals to those threatening to break it apart. National pay is part of the glue that holds together a national health service. In turn, the NHS is part of what holds our country together: a one-nation service bridging the social and economic divides of our country, uniting east and west, north and south; a service with fairness at its heart, where, from Newcastle to Newquay, patients can walk through the door and expect to meet staff with the same values, the same motivations and the same level of commitment to their employer. The debate is not a narrow argument about levels of pay. It is about the character of our health service and the cohesion of our country.”
“I beg to move, That this House believes national pay agreements are an important part of the infrastructure that underpins a national health service; notes reports of the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that there is going to be no regional pay system; further notes with increasing concern attempts by 20 trusts in the South West of England to opt out of national agreements by reducing staff pay and changing terms and conditions; notes with concern that an additional 11 trusts across England are considering similar moves; and calls on the Government to intervene without delay and uphold the principle of national pay arrangements in the NHS. My right hon. and hon.”
“I know that many Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall give way once or twice, to ensure that there is time left for others to contribute.”
“I am here to talk about the NHS in England. I will come on to the Conservative Government’s record on funding the NHS in England, so I would not be so smug if I were the hon. Gentleman. The drive to turn collaboration into competition depends on breaking national standards—breaking the “N” in NHS. The former Health Secretary’s request to the pay review body to consider the case for “market-facing pay” needs to be seen alongside his Health and Social Care Act 2012. Breaking national pay in the NHS is an essential step towards creating the free market in health that many in the Conservative party have long wanted, and which the Liberals now seem willing to let them have.”
“The Labour Government did introduce some flexibility, but let me tell the right hon. Gentleman my record: I spoke up, at every opportunity, for the principle of national pay underpinning a national health service. We hear nothing similar from Government Front Benchers. We built a progressive system of pay for the NHS in “Agenda for Change”, which brought fairness and stability to the system. By the time we left office, not one trust had opted out of that national system of pay, and only one, Southend, paid an increment on top.”
“That is a very different vision of the NHS, and it is not one to which the British people have ever given their consent in a general election.”
“No, I will make some progress. Breaking national pay is what the Government want to do, and that springs from an entirely different philosophy from the one that forged the NHS in the first place. The Government are rejecting the “one NHS” approach, whereby hospitals collaborate and the unpredictable pressures of any health service are balanced across the system. Instead, they have a vision of hospitals as stand-alone small businesses, on their own in the marketplace, with no bail-outs and free to earn up to 49% of their income from the treatment of private patients, but—as we are seeing in south-east London—finding little mercy in a private-sector-style administration process if the sums do not add up.”
“Some 88,000 NHS staff are being affected by a unilateral drive to set a new going rate of NHS pay in the regions, which would be up to 15% lower than national “Agenda for Change” rates. The trusts are proposing to end overtime payments for night, weekend and bank holiday working, and to reduce holiday leave. They are also proposing to force staff to work longer shifts, and to cut sick pay rates drastically. That is no idle threat. The silence from Ministers is clearly emboldening them. Despite concerns raised here and elsewhere, they have built a fighting fund, set up a website, and appointed lawyers to make all this happen.”
“Not for the first time, the coalition is not speaking with one voice. I understand that the Liberal Democrat conference passed a motion opposing regional pay and that the Deputy Prime Minister was captured on film voting for it—although, as we know, being photographed making pledges does not make him more likely to keep them. The Deputy Prime Minister has also made the following unambiguous statement: “There is going to be no regional pay system. That is not going to happen.” The trouble is that it is happening, under the Deputy Prime Minister’s nose and by the back door. Twenty NHS trusts in the south-west are openly defying the authority of the Deputy Prime Minister.”
“A “do nothing” amendment expressing no view on the south-west issue, and inviting Government Members to sit on the fence and wait for the conclusions of the pay review body’s review. That will not do. As the Government do nothing, national pay is being unpicked and the NHS is fragmenting before our eyes, but perhaps that is all part of the plan—it is nothing to do with them; it is all due to a local decision. The idea is to hide behind a review while national pay slowly and conveniently unravels, region by region, trust by trust. Staff facing the threat of a pay cut deserve some straight answers, but rather than getting a straight answer to the question “Does the Secretary of State support regional pay in the NHS or not?”, they are hearing contradictory statements from this shambolic Government.”
“He can come to the Dispatch Box and send the clearest of messages to NHS trusts seeking to break from national pay. What he will learn about his job is that, if he says something with sufficient force, the NHS will respond. The developing pay crisis in the NHS is the Secretary of State’s first real test, but so far he is failing it. As we reveal today, on his watch, the 20 NHS trusts that were threatening to break away in the south-west have become 32 NHS trusts across England. That is creating real worry for thousands of NHS staff and uncertainty for businesses, which have raised their concerns with the Chancellor. But what do we get from the Government today?”
“Looking at the Secretary of State’s past speeches, I could find nothing that conveyed any passion, belief or commitment to the NHS. On the contrary, I was worried when I read that he tried to remove Danny Boyle’s NHS tribute from the opening ceremony of the Olympic games. He is also one of the co-authors of a right-wing pamphlet entitled “Direct Democracy”. He may remember that pamphlet. It said: “Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain.” Is that still the Secretary of State’s view? He has gone quiet now, has he not? You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why NHS supporters get nervous about the intentions of this Secretary of State, but today he has a chance to calm those nerves.”
“I partly welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already acknowledged the flexibilities, and mentioned that only one trust in England ever sought to make use of them, because it wanted to add to the national floor that we had introduced. The flexibilities were there and I support them, but we left office with a national pay system in place. I look forward to his support later this afternoon. We have a new Secretary of State, but those who expect a change of direction look set to be disappointed. In his first major interview, he described his mission thus: “I would like to be the person who safeguards Andrew Lansley’s legacy”. That must qualify as the shortest suicide note in political history. We have Lansley-lite—more of the same—but, in fact, it may be worse.”
“This debate is flushing out the Government’s position, is it not? The Under-Secretary of State keeps heckling from the Front Bench, but we now know— [Interruption.]”
“There are five in the north-east, which gives rise to fears of a second emerging pay cartel. North Tees and Hartlepool has issued 90-day notices to 5,452 staff as a precursor to forcing them to sign new non-“Agenda for Change” contracts—staff who refuse to sign by March 2013 are threatened with the sack—and South Tees is considering a similar move.”
“The Government’s position was indeed made clear in Westminster Hall this morning, and perhaps we shall hear it again from the Dispatch Box in a moment. The south-west trusts’ initial document stated that the consortium would explore “radical changes to terms and conditions of the workforce”. It went on to say that this would not be a negotiation, and that “trusts would be obliged to dismiss and re-engage staff to secure such changes”. That is disgraceful, and it is simply not possible for the Government to have no view on it. It is provocative, destabilising and divisive. However, it gets worse. In the vacuum left by Ministers, the chaos is spreading. We have identified a further 12 trusts across England that are actively considering opting out of “Agenda for Change”.”
“A full £1 billion has been spent on redundancies—1,300 people have received six-figure payouts, and l73 have received more than £200,000—while 6,000 nurses are losing their jobs. That is scandalous. As unforgiveable is the Conservative party’s repeated inaccurate boast on NHS funding. I checked on the Conservative party website today, and in the “Where we stand” section it says this: “We have increased the NHS budget in real terms in each of the last two years.””
“These are the same staff whom we were celebrating during the Olympic games, just a few months ago, for everything that they contribute to the NHS and to the care of others, but Ministers sit there and do absolutely nothing. It is disgraceful that any staff in the NHS should be treated in such a way. This is no academic threat. These are the panic moves of an NHS that is experiencing increasing distress, in which control has been lost because it is facing the biggest financial challenge in its history. After the election, the £20 billion Nicholson challenge should have been the only show in town, but the previous Secretary of State was allowed to proceed with his vanity reorganisation of the NHS. Instead of focusing on saving money, the NHS has been busy wasting it: £1.6 billion, and rising.”
“The Secretary of State nods, because he has made similar statements. I want to know whether he stands by those words as a truthful and accurate statement.”
“and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox): “I am extremely cautious about any change that might further depress incomes in our area or that might act as a disincentive to those in the medical profession to work here.” The Government Front-Bench team would do well to listen to those concerns, as I suspect they are widely held across this House. The Government’s amendment does absolutely nothing for the 88,000 NHS staff in the south-west who are worried about the future. It does nothing for the businesses worried about regional divides. It ducks the issue, and lets local and regional pay creep in through the back door. If the Secretary of State has any belief in a national health service, he must step in tonight, stop the breakaway and uphold the principle of national pay in the NHS. I commend the motion to the House.”
“What I find encouraging is that Members on both sides of the House whose constituencies would be affected by these changes have had the courage to speak out against them. It is not just Liberal Democrat Members who are doing so. I am encouraged by the fact that a number of Conservative Members have expressed serious concerns. The hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) have all spoken out, and I can do no better than repeat the words of the hon.”
“They said: “Now is the time for the country to unite and focus on growth, not risk a divisive and harmful policy such as this.” They are right. An NHS with national pay is a one-nation policy. What is happening in the NHS risks cementing the regional divides and creating an unequal Britain. Taken together, those four reasons stack up a compelling case for keeping a system of national pay in the NHS. Losing it will be bad for the NHS, bad for the economy and bad for society. I know that the force of that argument is not only felt on the Opposition Benches. Debates such as this one usually divide Members along tribal lines, but there are Members in all parties who represent areas where the jargon of “market-facing pay” means one thing: crude pay cuts for the staff who work so hard to serve their constituents day in, day out.”
“It is true that pressures vary from place to place and the job is not the same everywhere, but the principle that a health visitor, a physiotherapist or a midwife should be paid broadly the same for doing a similar job is a good one. It is fair to staff, and we should stick with it. That brings me on to the fourth reason: the social and economic case. All the evidence points to regional pay in public services causing damage to the regional economies of England. Rather than stimulate the south-west economy, it has been estimated that regional pay would take £140 million out of it. It is not just the public sector making that argument. Some 60 academics wrote to The Times to say that, and businesses in the north-east have written to the Chancellor raising their concerns.”
“The problem with that argument is that those areas are also the most deprived parts of our country where the health challenges are greatest. It is often much harder to work on the NHS front line in areas of higher health need and deprivation. We need to work hard to attract the most motivated staff to those areas, and I simply do not see how that will happen if the offer to work in the areas where the pressure is greatest includes being paid 15% less. In the end, care is a people business and this race-to-the-bottom approach simply does not deliver the quality people are looking for. We have seen that approach in social care: a crude race to the bottom and a cut-price, minimum-wage business. That simply does not work.”
“For instance, national pay is reflected in the calculation of the tariff under the payment by results system, so are these trusts expecting to be paid at national tariff rates by commissioners while paying staff regional rates? I find it hard to see how that could be justified. So, in effect, they are not only pulling down the system of national pay that helps to give stability for everyone; they will also end up pulling down the national tariff system. The third health policy reason for national pay is the most compelling. National pay helps with the recruitment of staff in the areas where they are most needed. If we follow through the logic of the argument of proponents of a broken down system of regional or local pay, it will end in a proposal to pay people less in areas where unemployment is highest and wages are lowest.”
“There is also the hassle and distraction factor of every individual NHS employer or regional group going through the annual process of pay negotiation and setting. Trusts rushing to break away from the national pay system forget that. They are also forgetting the risks of the pre-“Agenda for Change” days, when individual trusts would bear the full legal exposure of failure to implement equal pay legislation. It would seem that there are a few short memories in the NHS. People are forgetting that the advent of a national pay system has insulated the NHS from those risks, which have impacted on other parts of the public sector, such as by bringing more turbulence in recruitment and retention. I do not think the 32 trusts involved in the breakaway have fully thought through the consequences of their position.”
“Unlike other areas of economic activity, health care depends upon certainty and predictability. As an essential emergency service, it needs to be there for people day in, day out. Volatility helps no one. All communities need a full complement of clinical grades and professions. Local or regional pay is not conducive to stable services. If one area starts seeking to poach staff from another, no one wins, as we will get instability and, over time, an inflationary pressure that is hard to control at local level. That brings me to the second reason in favour of national pay. All the evidence suggests that a national approach to pay and conditions helps to reduce costs and risks to the NHS. Market-based systems tend to cost more, not less.”
“Perhaps it is designed to give the impression that the drastic moves on pay are a local matter not of Ministers’ making. This is the real picture, however: the Government have forced the NHS to fund a £1.6 billion reorganisation it did not want—even though they promised that would not happen—from a falling budget which they still claim is increasing. All trusts have been put in a difficult position by this Government, but that is no excuse for some taking the easy way out by taking it out on staff. If they are allowed to do that, they will damage something that serves the wider good. The “Agenda for Change” system introduced by the last Government represented a significant step forward, and I want to set out the compelling economic, social and health policy arguments in its favour. First, it brings stability to the service.”
“He says he does, so let me refer him to table 1.8 of the Treasury’s “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2012”. On NHS spending it shows the following: for 2010-11, a 0.6% real-terms cut; for 2011-12, a 0.1% cut. Those are the facts. How on earth can the Secretary of State say today that he stands by— [Interruption.] The figures are there in black and white. There have been two years of real-terms cuts in the NHS. If anyone does not believe my analysis, a Department of Health press release from July 2012 confirms what I have said: “PESA figures released today show that in real terms NHS spending has reduced.” So I ask the Secretary of State this: will he today remove that untrue statement from the Conservative party website? It is giving a false impression of what is happening in the NHS.”
“The Secretary of State said again that in 2010-11 and 2011-12 the NHS budget increased in real terms. Is he saying that Her Majesty’s Treasury has got its figures wrong?”
“The Secretary of State has misrepresented the former Government’s position twice, and on NHS spending. Let me just ask him about regional pay. He said he is building on what we did. When we left office not a single NHS trust in this country had opted out of the national “Agenda for Change” system—that is a fact—because we defended the principle of national pay. He has just said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) that he will not condemn the cartel in the south-west, and that he wants trusts to choose whether to opt in to national pay or regional pay. Should he not tell Liberal Democrat Members and the people sitting behind him that he supports local and regional pay in the NHS?”
“The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government gave too much to nurses and midwives in pay— [ Interruption. ] He said that we spent too much on pay. He also said that the market rate of pay should apply in his area. I want to ask him a direct question. Does he think that his constituents who work in the NHS are overpaid?”
“If the hon. Gentleman gets rid of national pay in the south-west, does he think that the trusts in the consortium, or cartel, should receive a national tariff that factors in a national rate of pay, or should they be paid less for the work they do?”
“We could have a debate about foundation trusts, their powers and their freedoms, and there is an argument that some of them have improved in recent times, especially the big city trusts, but that is for another day. Will the hon. Gentleman at least do me the courtesy of acknowledging that during our time in government not one NHS trust broke away from “Agenda for Change”, and only one sought to add an increment?”
“But all the evidence says that a national pay system is more cost-effective because it does not lead to inflationary pressure around the system, so ours is not an irresponsible position. The hon. and learned Gentleman began with a very trenchant criticism of the foundation trust legislation, which has been echoed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. At the same time as that legislation was enacted, Labour was bringing forward the most ambitious ever programme to overhaul national pay in the NHS, called “Agenda for Change”. He needs to give us some credit for doing that.”
“This subject has featured a lot in today’s debate. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to go back to the speeches made by Ministers when that legislation was being introduced. They were clearly saying that there could be occasions when flexibility would be needed at the margins to deal with a particular short-term pressure or problem. Such an arrangement was used once, in respect of Southend, to put pay up. It is important to understand that there was no suggestion that pay could be reduced across the board in a co-ordinated, orchestrated move to undercut the national pay system that was being brought in at the same time. That argument has been put today, but it simply does not hold water.”
“On our watch, no trust opted out of the national pay agreement in the NHS, but on the Government’s watch, 32 trusts are trying to undercut it. The hon. Gentleman is in the Government—what is he going to do about it?”
“Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith)—which have not been fully answered. I must say to the Government that it is vital for the fullest possible answers to be given to the House today before any approval is given to this exceptional retrospective measure. I shall be seeking answers not just to the questions that I am about to ask, but to questions that the Secretary of State did not answer yesterday. There are matters of detail here, but matters of principle also arise, and I want to cover both in my speech.”
“The Secretary of State was right to act quickly, and to come to the House yesterday to make his exceptional and urgent request for legislation. I am surprised that he did not make the case for that legislation to the House in person today, but the Opposition have nevertheless concluded that, on balance, the public interest is best served by our supporting the Government in the swift action that they propose, and we will ensure as far as possible that that pragmatic approach is reflected in the other place. In reaching our judgment, I think we can take some comfort from the fact that the main mental health organisations, as well as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, are, for now, supporting the Government’s course. However, concerns and questions have already been raised today—not least by my right hon.”
“As I said yesterday, we will need to be sure that this is the only real course of action available and that it is not setting a precedent whereby emergency legislation can be used as a convenient means of correcting administrative failings, which could in itself breed a culture of complacency in public administration. In asking those legitimate questions, however, we must have at the forefront of our minds the simple fact that the uncertainty which has arisen in the past week affects thousands of highly vulnerable people and their families, as well as having serious implications for patients and public safety. If we leave that uncertainty hanging, it will have the potential to cause real harm to the individuals concerned, and to damage public trust in our systems of individual and public protection.”
“Detaining people under the Mental Health Act raises fundamental questions of individual liberty and public safety, requiring the most careful consideration. I am sure that there is general agreement across the House that the circumstances in which we find ourselves today are far from ideal. Members on all sides will want to use the time we have to satisfy themselves that the measures that the Government are asking the House to approve today are justified. Emergency legislation tends to be forward looking in its scope, so the retrospective nature of the Bill before us is unusual and potentially troubling for Members.”
“On the other hand, we would not want to see any curtailment of individuals’ legitimate right to challenge the decisions made affecting their liberty as a result of the Bill.”