17 OCT 2018

Social Care Funding

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

The very troubling case that the hon. Lady has described illustrates why we, as a House, must get this right. Does she accept that there has been political failure to resolve the issue of how we fund social care, and will she commit herself to taking a constructive, cross-party approach to getting it right?

Barbara Keeley Shadow Minister (Mental Health and Social Care)

The hon. Lady has asked me that question a number of times, and I always find it difficult to answer. She will know that my party really tried, but when we produced that White Paper in 2010—when we had a way forward and a set of funding proposals—all that we heard was "death tax". In last year's Budget, the Chancellor raised the issue of the "death tax" again: he said that it was not an option. I wonder how the hon. Lady thinks that Labour Members can talk to a party whose Chancellor has ruled out one of the options right at the start, before anyone sits down and discusses anything. I think that that is impossible. I valued the hon. Lady's role as Chair of the Health Committee, of which I used to be a member. Perhaps she will write to the Chancellor, and ask him to stop doing that.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

As the hon. Lady will know, this is a pattern that has pinged backwards and forwards with successive Administrations. I repeat that we must get it right. We cannot continue these cycles of political failure. We will only solve the problem—particularly in a hung Parliament—with a constructive, cross-party approach.

Barbara Keeley Shadow Minister (Mental Health and Social Care)

I am constantly astonished when Conservative Members talk about a cross-party approach. It is up to their party to come up with some proposals. When it has some proposals, there will be something to talk about. All that we have seen the Conservatives do is abandon all the proposals that they have previously had. We legislated, in the Care Act 2014, for a cap on care costs and a lifting of the ceiling—the asset threshold—but the Conservatives have abandoned that now. They had a set of policies at the time of the election last year, but they have abandoned that. The hon. Lady needs to speak to her own Secretary of State, and I hope that she can have a constructive conversation with the Chancellor as well.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


17 OCT 2018

Universal Credit

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Totnes has a vibrant arts sector. My hon. Friend will know that many self-employed artists take longer to establish themselves as a business, and there may be great variation, month to month, in what they are paid. In the light of her detailed work, does my hon. Friend have any suggestions about how we can improve the situation for self-employed artists?

Heidi Allen Conservative, South Cambridgeshire

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a fact that universal credit was not built for self-employed people, and it shows. The monthly assessments do not work and the minimum income floor needs to be looked at again because it typically takes more than a year for people's businesses to settle down.

To make the existing system really fly, I suspect that we need a boost to IT and admin man and womanpower behind the scenes, because let us make no mistake: universal credit is not yet fully automated. Claiming for childcare costs is a prime example of the manual work that is still being done. That brings me on to how we move legacy claimants across and the regulations that we have still to vote for—in November, I suspect. I am pleased that migration will start a lot later than originally planned, but I and many others still have concerns about the regulations. As a Government, we are choosing, for all the right reasons, to move people—that is people—across to a new system. I fail to see why that should be the complete and utter responsibility of those claimants. I have led on IT transformation projects in business and it would be unheard of for there not to be some kind of automated population of data from the old system to the new. We need to look really seriously into doing that, because it would save us hardship in the long run. Let us not forget that a third of migrated claimants are on ESA—the most vulnerable in society who have some kind of illness or disability—and we should look after them and not let them drop off the system. The population of data should be automatic and there should be no break in those people's payments at all.

Finally, when people arrive safe and sound on universal credit, the work allowances need to be what they should have been prior to 2015. How in this fair Great Britain that we call home can we have two families in identical circumstances living next to each other, but one has been protected across through migration and their next-door neighbours are £2,500 worse off a year? That is not Great Britain.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


15 OCT 2018

EU Exit Negotiations

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Here is some Brexit reality: AstraZeneca has announced just this afternoon that it is stopping investing in the United Kingdom. We have just 165 days to go until we leave the EU and we still have no deal, with disastrous consequences. The Prime Minister says that we cannot have a people's vote, but is not the truth here that the people were not able to see—there is no consensus about this—which of the many versions of Brexit we will be heading towards? Once we know that final deal, would it not be reasonable to go back to the British people, present them with what is involved and what the consequences are—both positive and negative—and then allow them to give their informed consent to moving forward?

Theresa May The Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party

I have answered this question on a number of occasions before this afternoon in relation to the fact that I believe it is imperative for Members of Parliament across the House to deliver on the decision that we freely gave to the people of the United Kingdom and to deliver on the vote that they took in relation to leaving the EU. My hon. Friend references the fact that there is no deal yet, but we are continuing to work for that deal. We continue in those negotiations and look forward to continuing to work with the member states of the EU and the European Commission towards that end.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


10 OCT 2018

Agriculture Bill

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

The chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has described antimicrobial resistance as a "catastrophic threat", and the Secretary of State will know that it is not only in human healthcare but sometimes in farming that we see inappropriate use of antimicrobials, thus increasing the risk that we will lose their benefit to human health. Will he use the Bill as a vehicle to drive down further inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in agriculture and to incentivise farmers who do the right thing? Will he also make sure that we are not exposed to products from places around the world where antimicrobials are used wholly inappropriately, including with environmental contamination?

Michael Gove The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care makes an absolutely important point. I have had the opportunity to talk to Dame Sally Davies, who has written a brilliant short book about the vital importance of dealing with antimicrobial resistance. I should also pay tribute to Lord O'Neill, who led work under Prime MinisterDavid Cameron on this. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Bill contains provisions to provide support and payments to farmers who take the appropriate animal health and welfare measures to ensure that we can fight the overuse of antibiotics, which is both a threat to human and animal health, and an environmental danger.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


09 OCT 2018

Government Overseas Aid Commitment: Private Investment: EU Exit Negotiations

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

The Secretary of State will have heard the clear intention of many colleagues on our Benches to vote down the Prime Minister's pragmatic deal. Meanwhile, the clock ticks down to 29 March and there is a serious risk that we could crash out with no deal and no transition. The consequences of that would be disastrous and very different from the dodgy prospectus that was set out in the referendum. Particularly if that is the case, will the Secretary of State commit to giving the British people the opportunity to give their informed consent to that final deal? It is not about obstructing the referendum; it is checking that we have informed consent, and no decent surgeon would proceed without it. 

Dominic Raab The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the need to pursue a good deal with the EU, and all our efforts are focused on achieving that. I do not accept the premise of her suggestion of a second referendum. I think it would inevitably be aimed at trying to reverse Brexit, and that would create democratic outrage and a huge amount of mistrust in the establishment and the political system.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


09 OCT 2018

Dangerous Waste and Body Parts Disposal

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the Minister for the prompt action that he has taken since being notified of this situation. Will he reassure people in the community and in community settings that this issue will not affect their safety?

 

 

Stephen Barclay Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Chair of the Health Committee raises an important point regarding residents in the areas where the sites are located, and I see Yvette Cooper in her place. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the waste is being stored safely; it is the amount of waste that is the issue. Many of our constituents are waiting for operations on these sites and will want reassurance that those operations can continue in a timely fashion. That has been a key focus of the Department, and I pay tribute to the work of officials in the NHS, the Department of Health, DEFRA and the Environment Agency, who have ensured that that strategic objective has been maintained.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


13 SEP 2018

Scallop Fishing: Bay of Seine

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

UK vessels have no access to scallops anywhere within French waters inside the 12-mile limit, which is very much in contrast to the position of French vessels that have access to waters within the six to 12-mile limit in the UK. Will the Minister reiterate—there has been some misunderstanding about this—that our vessels were fishing absolutely legally at the time of these disgraceful attacks? I welcome his assurance and talks with his opposite number, as well as his offer of assistance, but Brixham fishermen would like further reassurance that, when they fish in those waters, perfectly legally, measures will be in place to ensure their safety.

George Eustice The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

I entirely agree with and understand my hon. Friend's point. Much of the scallop fishing industry is based in Brixham in her constituency. She is right to say that the contested grounds are outside the 12-nautical mile limit—they are approximately 20 miles off the French coast and therefore not in French territorial waters. She is also right to say that in some areas the French fishing industry is able to fish in the UK's six to 12-mile zone. She will be aware that the Government have already given notice, under the terms of the London fisheries convention, to withdraw from that agreement and negotiate access arrangements afresh.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


11 SEP 2018

Home Care Services: Living Wage

Written Answers

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the Court of Appeal judgment on Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake and Shannon v Rampersad made on 13 July 2018, what plans the Government has to bring forward proposals to ensure that overnight care is subject to the National Living Wage.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what the (a) status and (b) liability for care providers that enrolled in HMRC's Social Care Compliance Scheme.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps he is taking to issue guidance on rates for sleep-in shifts; and what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of funding for local authorities to meet those rates.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the Court of Appeal judgment on Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake and Shannon v Rampersad made on 13 July 2018, what guidance the Government has issued on rates of pay for sleep in shifts to (a) local authorities and (b) care commissioners.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the Court of Appeal judgment on Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake and Shannon v Rampersad made on 13 July 2018, what plans the Government has to bring forward legislative proposals of the pay rates for care workers on sleep-in shifts.

Kelly Tolhurst Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

The Court of Appeal judgment overturns the previous interpretation of the law and means that "sleep-in" shifts, as defined by the Court of Appeal, no longer attract the National Minimum Wage. The Court of Appeal judgment applies both retrospectively and going forward. Government guidance on when "sleep-in" shifts should attract the National Minimum Wage has been updated to confirm that the Government has noted the judgment. That guidance will be updated shortly once Ministers have fully considered the implications the Court of Appeal judgment.

Over the past year Ministers from across the Government have been working closely on how "sleep-in" shifts are remunerated and will continue to do so.

Ministers from BEIS and the Department of Health and Social Care are liaising with local authorities and care commissioners to ensure that they have clarity on the legal position and on their responsibilities when commissioning care services.

HMRC's voluntary Social Care Compliance Scheme remains open. Employers participating on the scheme should take note of the Court of Appeal judgment and review their pay practices accordingly. HMRC officers have been in contact directly with all employers enrolled on the scheme to set out next steps.

Download this as a PDF


10 SEP 2018

Ministry of Justice: Prisons: Staff

Written Answers

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department and HM Prison and Probation Service are taking to speed up security clearance for health and social care staff commencing employment in prisons.

Rory Stewart The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

The last year has seen a significant increase in the level of recruitment with a target of deploying an additional 2,500 prison officers in post by the end of 2018. This has impacted the overall volume of cases handled by our shared services provider, due to significant increases in the number of applications handled. This has resulted in backlogs in processing across all of the business.

The right balance needs to be struck between having staff appropriately security cleared and the speed at which they can begin employment with HMPPS. Steps have been taken to review the whole recruitment end-to-end procedure to look at the points in which delays have or can take place. Action has been taken to address these and the backlog of cases has been reduced significantly from last year. This in turn, has also resulted in speedier processing times in security vetting for all staff.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average number of days taken was to gain security clearance for health and social care professionals seeking to commence employment in prisons in each of the last five financial years.

Rory Stewart The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

The average number of days taken to complete security clearance for health and social care professionals seeking employment within HMPPS from 2016 has been provided in the table below.

We are unable to provide this information for cases prior to 2016, as a different operating system was used and to which the now service provider to HMPPS does not have access.

Financial Year
Average days
 2016-2017  56
 2017-2018  71
 April 2018 to present
 37

Please note - that the information in the table for health and social care professionals has been collated based on the job title of the campaign and may be subject to slight variations.

Download this as a PDF


06 SEP 2018

Integrated Care

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I beg to move, That this House has considered the Seventh Report of the Health and Social Care Committee, Integrated care: organisations, partnerships and systems, HC 650, and the Government Response, Cm 9695.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank all those who contributed to our inquiry in writing and in person, my fellow Select Committee members, and the Select Committee team, which was ably led by our Clerk, Huw Yardley, with special input from Lewis Pickett. I also thank our special advisers, Professor Sir Chris Ham, Dr Anna Charles and Professor Pauline Allen.

We are all immensely grateful to the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw sustainability and transformation partnership, the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Larwood practice, not only for allowing us to meet them and their teams, but for facilitating the Committee's meetings with local and national leaders from across the healthcare system, the third sector and many other providers to hear evidence during our inquiry. Without them, the report would not have been possible.

I will start by setting out what we are talking about, and why it matters. It is one of the greatest triumphs of our age that we are living longer but, as that happens, many more of us are living with complex, long-term conditions that require support and input not only from dedicated family and formal carer networks, but from across the health and social care system. If those systems do not join up, if they do not share information, or if they are poorly co-ordinated or inaccessible, patients' care is poorer and everyone has a worse experience. Don Redding from National Voices, said that patients and the public "want to feel that their care is co-ordinated, that the professionals and services they meet join up around them, that they are known where they go, that they do not have to explain themselves every single time, and...that their records are available and visible." That is essentially what we mean by integrated care.

Integrated care can happen at three levels. It can happen directly, in the teams around the patient who deliver care in the patient's home—for example, through joint assessments. It can happen at the service level—for example, with services brought together in a one-stop clinic. It can happen at an organisational level—for example, in commissioning or the pooling of budgets. We should all be clear, however, that none of that matters unless we keep the patient at the front and centre of those discussions. If the result is not delivering better care for patients and their families, it is not worth doing.

Integration does not save money in the short term or, sometimes, in the medium term, which acts as a key barrier to putting in place integrated systems for the long-term benefit of patients. Unfortunately, particularly with the current financial pressures, we have a system that is sometimes dictated and hampered by short-term pressures to deliver financial savings—I will come on to that later. In essence, we have to keep sight of the fact that integration is about people and families. Although our report focuses on organisations, partnerships and systems, we have tried to relate it back at every stage to why it matters to patients, rather than it being a dry discussion about systems.

.......

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the hon. Lady, my fellow Committee member, for her input. We on the Committee heard that there is a complex spaghetti of acronyms—STPs, ICPs, ACOs—and nobody knows what they mean. Even those working in the system struggle to keep pace with them and with the changes. We have to keep bringing it back to plain English and why it matters to people and hold our attention there.

The integration of health and social care has been a long-term goal for successive Governments for decades, so we might ask why it is not happening everywhere if we have been striving for it for so long. We saw and heard about many fantastic examples of good integrated care, but they sometimes felt like oases in a desert of inactivity. It is also possible to have an area that does some things very well but others not so well.

.......

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I will respond further to the hon. Lady's remarks when I comment on legislative change and how we can get legislative change through a hung Parliament. I will also comment on the importance of engaging with the service and why that needs to come bottom-up from the service, and the importance of politicians from across the House listening to the service and being focusing on its message and the message from patients and patient representative groups. I thank her for her constructive input. The Committee has been successful in building consensus about how this should go forward. I hope the Minister has heard that intervention and that he will respond specifically to that point in his closing remarks.

........

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Coming back to why integrated care does not happen, there are many deeply ingrained structural divides. Since the inception of the NHS 70 years ago, we have had a system that is free at the point of use for the NHS, but means-tested for social care. That presents an extraordinary hurdle when systems are trying to join up. It is not just that; it is different contractual arrangements and working practices. Good integration comes down to individuals and teams being prepared to work together, but it often feels like they are working together to achieve integration despite the systems around them, not because of them.

We need a system where everybody is focused on helping the right kind of integration to take place, and we need to go back and look at that fundamental structural divide between the systems. I ask the Minister to look again at the joint report, "Long-term funding of adult social care", because that is an important issue that goes to the heart of the barriers to joining up services. It is about contractual differences, different legal accountabilities and payment systems that work against the pooling of budgets, and financial pressures within the NHS.

A certain amount of financial pressure can encourage systems to come together to pool their arrangements and provide a more efficient service, but as the Minister will know, when the elastic is stretched too tight and the financial strain becomes critical, we see the opposite—systems are forced apart. I have seen that happen in my area, where people suddenly feel that they have to retreat to their organisational silos to fulfil their legal obligations. There is no doubt that, for the process to work effectively, we need the right amount of funding—and sufficient funding—and tweaks to the legislative arrangements to allow people to come together, so it does not feel as if they are working together despite the system.

.........

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and for her own service to the Committee previously—she is very much missed. Her remarks are typical of the constructive input that she has always made to the health debate in emphasising the need to take the long view. Financial pressures so often force us into short-term solutions, not only in the way she set out but through the salami-slicing of services.

One of the points that our Committee feels strongly about and that I was going to make to the Minister is the need to ring-fence transformation funding, because it is so easy for that funding to get lost. I welcome the uplift in funding—a 3.4% increase will be very helpful—alongside a 10-year plan. However, we have to be realistic about what that uplift can achieve, because there are very many demands on that budget, as the Minister will know and as we have seen in the past. We saw it with the sustainability and transformation fund, which tended to get sucked into sustainability and not into transformation. That has been the pattern of recent decades. There is good intention to ring-fence money for transformation, but that money disappears because of other priorities around deficits and, as I have said, the many other calls on the funds available.

That is why we feel that, in order to prevent the continuation of that cycle of past mistakes, it is important that the pattern is recognised and that funding is earmarked for transformation—not only for capital projects but for things such as double-running.

I will give an example from my area. There will be a complete destruction of public trust in new models of care if money is not set aside for double-running. The community was prepared to accept that there would be a new facility—nobody wanted the closure of the local community hospital in Dartmouth, but there was an assurance that there would be a new facility. Unfortunately, despite many of us opposing the closure of the old facility, what happened was that it was closed and then there was a breakdown in the arrangements for the new facility. The community was left with nothing and there has been a huge destruction of public trust in the process, which unfortunately will have ripple effects across other communities. Had we received the money to keep the existing service while the new service was built and got up and running, it would have left us in an entirely different situation. I am afraid that we see that too often across health and social care. There is good intention, but without double-running, which is part of having a ring-fenced transformation fund, I am afraid that the system has broken down too often in the past. I would like the Minister to focus on that when he makes his remarks.

The Committee is also looking forward to the 10-year plan—we look forward to working alongside both NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to examine how that plan emerges—but is important to draw attention to legislative changes. Our Committee made a recommendation that legislative proposals should come from the service itself rather top-down from the Department, which would immediately run into difficulties. However, as a Committee we also offered to subject such proposals from the service to pre-legislative scrutiny.

As Diana Johnson pointed out in her intervention, we need to build cross-party consensus at every point. As it has not been covered in the formal response to the Committee's report, will the Minister say in his closing marks whether the Government would support the Committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny?

I am pleased to have had a conversation with Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, who has confirmed that, as it emerges, the NHS assembly will consider that within its remit—NHS England hopes to produce proposals in draft form before Easter 2019. Nevertheless, as I have said, it would be helpful to receive the Minister's assurance that proposals will come to our Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny as part of the process of building consensus.
............

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Hon. Members know that a lack of proper pre-legislative scrutiny that responded to concerns expressed led to many of the barriers. We have to go back and address them when they could have been addressed in a more collaborative process during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I am thinking of the need to reconsider the legal basis for merging NHS England and NHS Improvement, and how we establish a better statutory basis for the process so that provider partnerships do not always have to go back to separate boards to gain their approval. It is about considering how we address issues such as geographical arrangements so that they make more sense to local communities. The Committee could play a constructive role in a host of areas but—I say this to the Minister—unless proposals are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny and unless a cross-party consensus is established, proposals are likely to fail.

My final point—other Committee colleagues will probably want to develop it further—is this: what will happen around establishing a legal basis for integrated care providers? For two reasons, the Committee welcomes the change of name from "accountable care organisations" to "integrated care partnerships". First, the original name confused the debate about Americanisation. The "accountable care organisations" proposed were not the same as those organisations in the States, and the original name caused a great deal of unnecessary anxiety. We do not see the process as Americanisation.

A concern raised with the Committee was that the process will be a vehicle for privatisation. We did not agree. In fact, we thought the opposite: we agreed with the witnesses who told us that the process provided an opportunity to row back from the internal market and away from endless contracting rounds, and move towards much more collaborative working. We would like that change to be properly reinforced within the legal status of health bodies, and are disappointed that the Government have not agreed to say categorically that these bodies would be classed as NHS bodies. When the Minister sums up the debate, I would like him to reflect on whether any form of wording can put the matter beyond doubt and ensure that these health bodies will not be taken over by large, too-big-to-fail private sector organisations.

It is not a concern that groups of GPs might want a leading role in the bodies. The Minister will know that the public concern is more about them being taken over by very large too-big-to-fail private sector organisations. It should be possible to come up with a solution. The Committee heard—the Minister knows this—that those working in the service have the view that that the bodies are not likely in practice to be taken over by private sector providers. However, that public concern exists and is a barrier to change. If we can put this matter beyond doubt, we should try to do so.

........

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful clarification. I was trying to distinguish GPs, who are private contractors to the NHS. Sometimes that status is used as a reason why integration cannot be done. I do not think there is concern about that level of leadership involvement but, as she rightly points out, there is concern about other aspects of the private sector. It is acting as an unhelpful distraction when there should be a consensual approach to ensure, as I said at the beginning, that we keep focused on the purpose, which is to provide better services for patients. Anything we can do to facilitate making it easier for that to happen—rather than feeling like we are wading through treacle—will be a positive way forward.

I thank my colleagues and all who helped with the inquiry.

Download this as a PDF


06 SEP 2018

Cystic Fibrosis

I met today with Matt Hancock and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to discuss the deadlock on CFTR modulators on behalf of those living with the devastating consequences of Cystic Fibrosis and for whom delay increases disability and costs lives.

Download this as a PDF


04 SEP 2018

Prisons: Health Services

Written Answer

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the effect of the time taken to obtain security clearance for health and social care staff on the delivery of healthcare in prisons.

Jackie Doyle-Price The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

The Department has not made a formal assessment of the effect of the time taken to obtain security clearance for health and social care staff on the delivery of healthcare in prisons.

All staff and non-directly employed personnel are subject to a series of pre-appointment security checks to determine their suitability to work in a prison. The unique nature of such work means that checks may need to be more comprehensive than other locations and can take time.

NHS England continues to work with Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service and the Ministry of Justice to expedite clearance on a case by case basis where concerns are raised by providers.

The end-to-end recruitment procedure has been reviewed by the Ministry of Justice to identify the points at which delays have or can take place. Action has been taken to address these and the backlog of cases has been reduced significantly from last year. This in turn, should also result in reduced processing times in security vetting for all staff.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


24 JUL 2018

Health and Social Care: NHS Services: Online Access

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. He will know that no regulator is prospectively examining the safety and effectiveness of diagnostic apps in use in the NHS. I wrote to his predecessor recently following concerns that were raised with me about Babylon's apps, which could be missing symptoms of meningitis and heart attack, for example. What steps will the Secretary of Statetake to ensure that, as these technologies are rolled out, patients have can have absolute confidence that they have been properly evaluated for safety and effectiveness? Will he set out how he will take that forward?

Matthew Hancock Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes a really important point. There is no greater enthusiast for technology than me—as you well know, Mr Speaker—but the thing about new technology is that the rules sometimes need to be updated to take changes in technology into account. The response when there are challenges such as the one my hon. Friend raises is not to reject the technology, but the opposite: to keep improving the technology so that it gets better and better, and to make sure that the rules keep up to pace. I spoke to Simon Stevens at NHS England about this only this morning—we have had a series of conversations in the past couple of weeks since I have been in post—and he is reviewing this exact question. I am absolutely sure that we will get to the right answer.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


20 JUL 2018

Fracking: Health Hazards

Written Answers

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether the Government has commissioned a review of research relating to the health implications of shale gas extraction by any organisation since the 2015 general election.

Steve Brine The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

Public Health England continues to review the evidence on the potential public health impacts of emissions associated with shale gas extraction and has not currently identified any significant evidence that would make it change its views stated in its 2014 Review.

Hansard

Download this as a PDF


19 JUL 2018

Exiting the European Union: Contingency Plans

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Crashing out with no deal looks increasingly likely, particularly as former members of the Government have stated that they intend to undermine a deal. What is needed now is a plain English guide to the consequences of no deal for individuals, families, communities and businesses. Will the Minister commit himself to publishing such a guide so that people can see the consequences and step away from the edge of the cliff?

Chris Heaton-Harris The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

As my—right hon. Friend? [Interruption.] It is only a matter of time; everything comes to those who wait.

As my hon. Friend knows, because she chairs the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister said yesterday that a whole bunch of technical notices would be produced for exactly that purpose.

Download this as a PDF


18 JUL 2018

Liaison Committee

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, was today questioned by the Liaison Committee.

Download this as a PDF


17 JUL 2018

Trade Bill: Transfer Schemes

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee overwhelmingly showed the importance to patients of our maintaining close regulatory alignment not only here, but across the EU. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Committee that we must do more to publish the contingency planning and the consequences of not maintaining alignment so that the public can see this?

Phillip Lee Conservative, Bracknell

I will be as brief as possible, Mr Speaker.

Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend's comments. Every month 45 million patient-packs of medicine go to the EU from the UK and 37 million packs move the other way. It is hard to think of a single other product that illustrates so well the importance of frictionless trade.

This amendment supports the Government's intentions as explained in the Prime Minister's Mansion House speech and their White Paper, but we must go further and enshrine them in law because of the very real impact on people's lives, on the NHS's ability to operate, on the industry, and on investment in the UK. That is why I will press this new clause to a vote.

I will also support new clause 18 this evening. Yesterday was the worst experience in politics I have had in eight years, and I am sorry that it has changed the dynamic. I started the week intending to support our Prime Minister in her deal and the White Paper. Yesterday changed that, and that is why I will be supporting other colleagues on these Benches when we come to new clause 18 this evening.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


17 JUL 2018

Electoral Commission Investigation: Vote Leave

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

The reality is that punishments are not following. We are talking about deliberate cheating and this money going to a firm that used highly sophisticated targeted Facebook advertising. In a quote since removed from the Aggregate IQ website, Vote Leavecampaign director Dominic Cummings said:

"We couldn't have done it without them."

That is Dominic Cummings, who will not appear before Select Committees, having claimed during the campaign that he wanted to restore the sovereignty of Parliament. He runs away from accountably himself. Consequences must follow. We cannot have confidence that the referendum was secure, and it should be rerun.

Chloe Smith The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, Assistant Whip

The report is clear that consequences do follow. The Electoral Commission has issued fines and referred both Vote Leave and the BeLeave founder to the police. That is what I refer to when I say that consequences and punishments are following.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


12 JUL 2018

Eu: Future Relationship White Paper

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank you for your comments, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, but I do not think it possible for Members to question him about the White Paper without having had a chance to read it. He said that he will step up planning for a no-deal scenario. Will he commit to publishing the consequences of no deal for individuals, communities and the economy, so that we can all assess what its impact will be?

Dominic Raab Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

I respect my hon. Friend's views, and I know she takes a close interest in these matters. I seem to remember that under previous Administrations statements and hard-copy documents were received very late, but I have apologised for what happened today, and I will endeavour to ensure that it is not repeated. On her broader point, we have tough choices to make, and the White Paper seeks to reconcile the challenge of ensuring that we leave the customs union, with all the benefits of that and opportunities to be grasped, while also minimising any potential disruption to trade. I will release more details to the House about our no-deal planning in due course.

Download this as a PDF


11 JUL 2018

The Treasury

Thank you to Robert Jenrick,the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for meeting SW Conservative MPs to discuss budget priorities and the Spending Review. There was a long list of issues to discuss including transport infrastructure , funding pay rises for schools, water bill rebates and urgency to settle back pay for sleep-in shifts in social care

Download this as a PDF


10 JUL 2018

Grammar Schools: Transport

Written Answer

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the Chancellor's announcement in the 2017 Budget , what the timetable is for the extension of free school transport for children in receipt of free school meals to those travelling to selective schools.

Nick Gibb Minister of State (Education)

The Department is committed to ensuring every child is able to access a good school place, regardless of background. The new Selective Schools Expansion Fund will create more good school places where there is local demand by supporting the expansion of existing good or outstanding selective schools. Those schools that are successful in their application will be expected to undertake activity to encourage more pupils from low-income families to attend and be committed to improving access for disadvantaged pupils.

Children will be eligible for free transport to a selective school if they meet the existing eligibility criteria.

The Department expects more children to become eligible for free home to school transport as a result of new rules on eligibility for free school meals, and will be providing local authorities with additional funding to help them provide this.

The Department is not, however, taking forward proposals to open new selective schools and, not taking forward plans for free transport specifically for children who are eligible for free school meals who attend their nearest selective school.

Where disadvantaged pupils are not eligible for free transport, schools may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to use pupil premium funding to support transport costs for these pupils.

Download this as a PDF


09 JUL 2018

Stalking Protection Bill

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will start by thanking the many people who have come forward to talk openly about their own harrowing personal experiences at the hands of stalkers—including those who have been bereaved as a result of stalking—and the many organisations that have provided support and expertise: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the Gloucestershire stalking support service, Paladin, the Alice Ruggles Trust, Protection Against Stalking and, of course, many members of the police and the police and crime commissioner lead. I am very grateful to all of them for sharing their expertise. I am also grateful to the Minister's Bill team, who have been extraordinarily helpful in providing support.

Clause 1 creates a new civil protective order to protect victims of stalking, called a stalking protection order. I am delighted that the Bill has received such strong cross-party support. I really welcome this consensus, on behalf of those who have been victims of stalking in the past and, more importantly, those whom we can protect in the future. It is worth reiterating why we are here to create the new orders. Responses to a public consultation launched in December 2015 stressed the need for earlier intervention in stalking cases to protect victims and to address emerging patterns of behaviour in perpetrators before they become entrenched or escalate in severity, as well as for putting in place vital extra protections. They identified a clear gap in the existing protective order regime, particularly in cases of so-called stranger stalking, where the stalking occurs outside a domestic abuse context or where the perpetrator is not a current or former intimate partner of the victim.

The Bill is therefore intended to provide the police with an additional tool with which to protect victims and deter perpetrators at the earliest possible opportunity, and to fill the gap in the protective order regime. Stalking protection orders will be available on application to a magistrates court by the police, ensuring, importantly, that the onus to take action is not placed on the victim and that the police have end-to-end sight of the entire process, from application to enforcement of the orders, and if there is reasonable cause to believe that the proposed order is necessary to protect another person from the risk of stalking.

I should inform the Committee at this point that I am exploring the possibility of the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police also being able to apply for these orders. I hope to provide an update on Report.

Crucially, the orders will be available in cases of stranger stalking because, unlike with existing protective orders, clause 1 contains no requirement for stalking to have occurred in a domestic abuse context or for there to be a current or former intimate partner relationship between victim and perpetrator. The clause also contains no requirement for the orders to be made on conviction. Again, that is unlike what happens with existing protective orders.

Alex Chalk Conservative, Cheltenham

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her vision and stamina in promoting the Bill, which have been a lesson to us all. The fact that there is no requirement for a conviction is the strength of the provision. However, I am interested in the burden and standard of proof to be established before an order can be made. One can well imagine that they would be contested; and they should be imposed only where it is fair to do so, given that breach of such an order could result in a custodial penalty.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank my hon. Friend for the extraordinary work that he has undertaken on behalf of victims of stalking. He is right to draw attention to that matter. Orders could be made on the balance of probability, but breach of an order would be a criminal offence. That is the important distinction, and I know that he welcomes those arrangements.

As I mentioned, clause 1 includes no requirement for orders to be made on conviction—an important distinction —or for the behaviour giving grounds for the application to have met the criminal threshold. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was pointing out, and it is because stalking protection orders are designed specifically to permit early intervention when the criminal threshold has not yet been met but where it is known that there is a serious risk of harm as a result of stalking. If the police are gathering evidence and preparing a criminal case for court—for example if they are pursuing a stalking conviction—that takes time. The orders are not intended to replace such prosecutions. They can protect victims at the earliest possible opportunity and also are a way of stepping in to address the perpetrator's behaviour before it progresses into an obsessive campaign. Breaking the cycle is much more difficult if the behaviour is allowed to continue for longer.

To address the behaviour in question effectively, orders would make it possible to impose prohibitions and positive requirements on the perpetrator. Clause 1 would allow the police to propose to the court a bespoke intervention to protect the victim from harm but also, crucially, address the perpetrator's behaviour. Requirements to be imposed on a perpetrator by orders include notification requirements similar to those for registered sex offenders. Those are provided for in clause 9 and would help ensure that the police had the right information at the right time to manage the risk posed by perpetrators effectively. A perpetrator who did not comply with the conditions of a stalking protection order would face a criminal penalty for breach under clause 8, with a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.

Finally, clause 12 makes provision for the Government to issue statutory guidance to the police on the use of the orders. That will be developed in collaboration with criminal justice partners and sector experts and will help ensure that the police have the knowledge, understanding and confidence to use stalking protection orders to their full potential. It is only right to acknowledge that a new stalking protection order will not in itself deliver a better response to stalking; that will require an improved awareness of stalking on the part of all professionals working in that space, and a continued focus on improving the criminal justice response through the provision of high-quality training, guidance and professional development.

Other measures, beyond the scope of the Bill, were suggested on Second Reading. One was a stalking register. I know that the Government are committed to looking at wider options to improve the response to stalking, and to linking those considerations to wider work on supporting vulnerable victims. However, it is important to note that the notification requirements that could be imposed on a perpetrator under clause 9 are similar to those that can be imposed on registered sex offenders. I look forward to hearing the Minister's thoughts on that point.

I am sure that Committee members will agree that any further changes with respect to stalking should be introduced following rigorous and comprehensive consultation. That brings me to the reason I tabled an amendment to change the long title of the Bill: to ensure that it better reflects its content, which is limited to stalking protection orders and related matters. It is a minor, technical amendment that I hope provides neatness and clarity and will smooth the Bill's passage through Parliament.

I hope that I have made clear how the Bill provides the police with a welcome additional tool, the purpose of which is to protect victims of stalking and deter perpetrators at the earliest possible opportunity, even before the stage is reached at which a prosecution could commence, or to put in place protection while evidence for a prosecution is being gathered. It is imperative that we are able to provide effective support for victims of this devastating crime.

Emma Reynolds Labour, Wolverhampton North East

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the legislation. Will she explain in more detail the provision for interim stalking protection orders in the Bill?

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the hon. Lady for asking about that. It can take time to bring together all the evidence needed for a full stalking protection order, but we all recognise that time is of the essence—I am sure we have all heard compelling evidence of serious harm ensuing. The point is to bring forward an interim order at the earliest possible opportunity, not to replace either a full stalking protection order or the pursuit of a stalking conviction where possible, but to ensure that we recognise that time is of the essence. In the most serious cases we would expect the police to use their existing powers regarding pre-charge bail conditions. I hope that answers the hon. Lady's question.

I hope that Members will give their full support to the Bill and I welcome the cross-party support and constructive debate.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who has been talking about this issue for a very long time, and I pay tribute to him for his long-standing commitment. We also had contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Enfield, Southgate, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Torbay. The right hon. Member for Exeter also provided vital support, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Harborough.

Mr Gray, thank you for your excellent chairmanship. Finally, I warmly thank the Minister for her ongoing dedication to this cause. I also thank the Home Office team, Christian Papaleontiou and Emily Stewart.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


05 JUL 2018

NHS 70

It was such an honour to be in Westminster Abbey today for the wonderful and moving service to celebrate NHS70 and to thank Nurse Alison Cull for her years of service to the community in Totnes (and for making it today despite her broken leg)

Download this as a PDF


04 JUL 2018

NHS70 Awards

It was a pleasure to host the NHS70 Awards in Parliament, celebrating the people and services which exemplify the everyday brilliance of those working in NHS and care services. Thank you to Jeremy_Hunt for speaking, and congratulations to the winners and those shortlisted

Download this as a PDF


04 JUL 2018

Sustainable Fisheries

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

As an independent coastal state, we will be able to decide who can access our waters after 2020 and on what terms, but that will be subject to negotiation. Will the Secretary of State reassure the fishing community in my constituency that its interests will not be traded away after the transition period? In considering the environmental aspects of this, can he say whether those terms will also include a ban on electric pulse fishing?

Michael Gove The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

I absolutely share the concern about pulse fishing, which has been articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Yes, absolutely. She and I may differ on one or two aspects of politics, but one of the many things that we are united on is our belief that we need to ensure that, as an independent coastal state, we control access to our waters, and that, separately, we secure the deepest and friendliest trade, economic and other relationship with the EU.

Download this as a PDF


02 JUL 2018

Health and Social Care Committee

 

Today the Health and Social Care Committee met to discuss NHS Funding

Download this as a PDF


02 JUL 2018

Ministry of Justice: Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

It is an honour to speak in this estimates day debate on the 70th anniversary of the NHS. I am privileged and proud to have worked in the NHS for 24 years before coming to this place, and I would like to start by saying thank you to all those who work in the NHS. The principle behind it is as strong now as it was on the day it first opened its doors: it should be free at the point of delivery, available to all, and based on need, not the ability to pay. That is as important now as it ever was; it is truly the thing that makes us most proud to be British. This is not just the anniversary of the NHS, however; it is also the 70th anniversary of the National Assistance Act 1948, which swept away the poor laws and introduced our system of social care, so it is absolutely right that we should be having this joint estimates day debate.

I absolutely welcome the uplift in funding announced by the Prime Minister, but I would like to talk about how we will get the most from those funds, and also how we will pay for this. One of the key challenges that we have long faced is that although the NHS is free at the point of delivery, social care has been means-tested from the outset. That has created a huge challenge in bringing the systems together and providing the integration that patients expect but often find, to their surprise, is not there. Moving towards more integration would have great benefits for patients, and would create savings and a much more logical, patient-centred approach for both systems. I urge the Minister to look closely at the report of both Committees into social care, in which we touched on that issue and made recommendations, which I will talk more about later.

Kevin Foster Conservative, Torbay

My hon. Friend is providing an excellent introduction to this debate. Does she agree that both Front-Bench teams could look at the example of Torbay Council—the local authority we share—which now has an integrated care organisation that brings together adult social care and the NHS for the benefit of our local residents?

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Indeed; Torbay has led the way. When the Health and Social Care Committee visited Norway and Denmark, we were shown slides from Torbay, because its approach, referring to a Mrs Smith and actually trying to envisage how everything would work around the patient, has been hugely influential abroad as well as at home.

Chris Green Conservative, Bolton West

Health and social care within Greater Manchester has been devolved to the Mayor. Does my hon. Friend agree that Greater Manchester will hopefully lead the way in demonstrating the opportunities presented by combining health and social care?

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Yes, and I am going to say more about that, because Manchester has benefited from transformation funding. I want to talk about not only the benefits of integration, but how we can ring fence transformation funding. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments.

Returning to the recent announcement, a £20.5 billion a year uplift by 2023-24 for NHS England is welcome and represents a 3.4% average increase over five years. Importantly, it is front loaded, with 3.6% in the first two years, and comes on top of £800 million that has already been promised to fund the Agenda for Change pay rises. However, the announcement should not be the end of the story, because it refers only to NHS England and does not include social care, public health, capital or, importantly, training budgets—staffing is crucial to making all this work.

Of course, the Prime Minister acknowledged that and promised to come forward with a settlement for social care and public health in the autumn. However, we need to be clear right from the outset that we must have a social care settlement that reflects demographic changes, because we will need an increase of 3.9% in funding just to stand still. If we want to do something to address quality and to allow social care to do more, we need to go substantially further. That will be essential if we want to get the most out of the settlement that has already been announced for NHS England.

Diana R. Johnson Labour, Kingston upon Hull North

Returning to the hon. Lady's point about public health not being part of the recent announcement, has she seen the 2017 review that highlighted that there is a return of over £14 for every pound spent on local and national public health policies? It therefore makes economic sense to invest in public health, not to cut it in any future announcement.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I absolutely agree. This is about not just funding for public health, but the policy levers. We do not need lots of talk about the "nanny state" that denigrates important national public policy drivers, because although we need funding for local services, as the hon. Lady says, this is also about the policy environment that is necessary to make important changes. Investing in public health makes a huge difference for people.

One of the problems here is that when the public are asked where they would like the priorities to fall, we often hear, understandably, about the importance of cancer outcomes, mental health and emergency waiting times. Public health is often bottom of the list because nobody necessarily knows when their life has been saved by a public health policy. The reality is that the major changes and achievements relating to life expectancy have arisen largely thanks to public health policy, but we rarely turn on the television and see a programme called "24 Hours in Public Health", which is a shame.

Philippa Whitford Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Health)

In the air quality debate last Thursday, I touched on the need for health in all policies. From active transport to quality of housing, is that not where we need to drive public health?

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Health in all policies means using every opportunity to maximise public health. When Departments work together, such as on the childhood obesity strategy, we need maximum engagement across the whole of Government to make that effective. The way it was put to us when the Committee visited Amsterdam was that it should be viewed as a sandbag wall, and if any part of it is missing, we are not going to achieve what we want. That applies to all of public health.

Luciana Berger Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool, Wavertree

To echo the point that has just been made, the hon. Lady will be aware that I presented a ten-minute rule Bill in April about having health in all policies. Does she agree that the Government should reinstate the Cabinet Office Sub-Committee on public health so that the entire machinery of government can come together to ensure that we do everything possible to keep people well, rather than having a service that treats people when they are sick?

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Absolutely. It is essential that we use every mechanism at our disposal to ensure that Departments work together. Public health is mostly delivered in the community, so we need that to happen at the local level, too. Councils should be reaching out into their communities and ensuring that they use every opportunity to deliver health in all areas when it comes to prevention.

One of the most welcome aspects of the funding settlement is that it is long term. For too long we have limped from one short-term sticking plaster to another, so I particularly welcome the fact that we now have certainty over five years combined with a 10-year long-term plan. In the Minister's response, I ask her to reflect on the recommendation from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS for an office of health and care sustainability to do long-term horizon scanning. That means not just future demographic challenges, but long-term workforce planning, which has always been a huge challenge within the health service. Brexit, for example, has implications for not just the workforce, and there are many other challenges ahead, so it would be helpful to have an independent body that could consider such things and help to work out the necessary long-term funding.

My final points are about how we fund the new system. I would be delighted if there was a Brexit dividend, but I am afraid that I do not believe that there will be. I think there will be a Brexit penalty. The difficulty with people thinking that everything might be solved by a mythical future fund means that we are not levelling with them right at the outset that we are all going to have to pay for it. The challenge should be about how to distribute the cost fairly. That is the key point here.

I want to stop here to thank the citizens' assembly that worked with my Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I also thank the Chair of that Committee, Mr Betts, for the Committee's diligent work on this issue.

Going back to fairness, when I was in practice, it always came as a huge shock to my patients when they realised that if they had what might be really quite modest assets, they would have to fund all their social care. That shock was striking when the citizens' assembly considered the matter. If we are to move to a properly funded system, it must look at the quality of social care, which is precarious in nature, and at the provider challenge. We must be realistic, and we have to make it clear that somebody has to pay. We cannot just put it off to future generations; we have to think about it and explain to the public what that means.

That is why, unusually, our Select Committee makes recommendations to both Front-Bench teams, because the failure to address this has been a political failure. On the one hand, measures suggested by the Labour party have been denounced by my party as a "death tax" and, on the other, my party's suggestions have been denounced as a "dementia tax", and that means we get nowhere.

If we are to avoid having the same discussion in five years' time, we need to be clear about how we will get this across the line. That will require, particularly in a hung Parliament, the co-operation of both sides of the House. I therefore urge both Front-Bench spokespeople to commit to working together.

Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly said that we are prepared to form a parliamentary commission to go out and engage with the public, rather as Adair Turner did on the difficult issue of pensions, regarding what fairness means. We cannot offload this entire cost on to a relatively shrinking pool of working-age employed adults. We need to have a conversation that reaches out to everybody and asks, "What is the fair payment?", and in return we must make sure those extra payments are earmarked for the NHS and do not just disappear into wider Government funding.

How we do that will mean conversations about national insurance with the self-employed, and it will mean conversations with people in retirement about their own contributions. We cannot put the cost entirely on to young people, many of whom are already, in effect, paying a graduate tax of 9% on everything they earn over £25,000. That would not pass the fairness test.

I am afraid that least fair thing of all would be for us to duck this challenge and leave even more people without the care they need, with disastrous consequences for them, for their loved ones and for their carers, because it falls into the "too difficult" box. This is difficult, but we need to grasp it, explain it to people and come to a decision.

They Work for You

Download this as a PDF


28 JUN 2018

Backbench Business - Improving Air Quality

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Does my hon. Friend agree that such a fund could also be used to build infrastructure for those who walk or cycle—for active transport?

 

Neil Parish Chair, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee, makes a good point. Once we have the money, there are limitless things we can do with it. The unfortunate fact is that we do not have the money at the moment. I think the Government have felt that. Walking, cycling and altering the way we go about our daily lives is all good. It is good for our health, and it gets us out of our cars.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


28 JUN 2018

Exiting the European Union

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the Chair and members of the Exiting the EU Committee for today's statement and their excellent report. The Committee I chair, the Health and Social Care Committee, has been very concerned about what could happen, in the event of no deal, to the future supply of medicines and devices because of the challenges to the supply chain. Will the Chair of the Committee set out in what other areas he is seeing concerns about the lack of contingency planning being published so that we can scrutinise what is happening and prepare for the future?

Hilary Benn Chair, Committee on Exiting the European Union

Ministers have said to us that work is going on to prepare for the possibility of no deal. The Committee has previously expressed its view that a no deal outcome would be very damaging to the British economy and create a great deal of uncertainty. That is why we say in the report that we do not accept that a rejection of the deal will then automatically lead to us leaving with no deal, because it would be for Parliament, in the end, to decide whether it was prepared to leave the European Union with no deal. That would be a matter for every single one of us as Members.

I think the nearer we get to March 2019, the more there will be concern if the possibility of no deal being agreed becomes greater than it is at present. I still hope and believe that agreement will be reached because, frankly, neither side in this negotiation should contemplate with any equanimity the prospect of leaving with no deal. The consequences would be exceedingly serious, as we learned from the evidence we heard from the Port of Dover when we visited it, in terms of practical things like keeping the lorries flowing, never mind the medicines, never mind aircraft, never mind broadcasting rights, never mind data transfer. There is a very long list of questions on which people know how the system works today and they want to know how it will work once we have left, but they are very worried about what would happen if there were no deal, and my own personal view—I have expressed it in the House before—is that that is not something we should contemplate at all.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


28 JUN 2018

Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank my co-Chair for the dedicated work that he has put into this joint report, as well as all members of both Committees and our wonderful supporting Committee teams. Like him, I thank not only all those who took part in the citizens' assembly and those who advised and supported them, but the very many people, and their loved ones, who depend on social care, who wrote to us and whom we visited on our Committee visit. They told us moving stories about the level of unmet need and the consequences, both for themselves and their families.

The situation could not be more stark. As we approach the 70th anniversary of the NHS next week, would my hon. Friend say more about the impact on the NHS if we fail to address the unmet need in social care?

Clive Betts Chair, Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee

I thank the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Health Committee—I think on this occasion, my hon. Friend, because we have worked on a friendly basis on this inquiry. She is absolutely right. One of the important recommendations is about trying to extend the scope of care provision to include those with moderate needs. If we provide care for them, it is quite likely that we will stop them from getting into the substantial and critical phase and ending up in hospital in the first place. In terms of the NHS, it is about stopping people getting into hospital by getting them proper care and having care available for people in hospital, so that they do not have delayed discharges. In those two ways, that can be beneficial. Of course, we can also join up services. Can the NHS district nurse who goes into someone's home and looks at their needs not assess their care needs at the same time? Can we not get that sort of joined-up approach?

It was remiss of me not to thank the staff, as the hon. Lady did, and I will name Laura and Tamsin. The work they did on this was exceptional. To produce a report of this quality in the time available was absolutely first-class, and we should congratulate them on it.

Download this as a PDF


26 JUN 2018

Devon Air Ambulance

Thank you to the Devon Air Ambulanceā© for all you do for people across all our communities. Concerned to hear about impact of people filming with mobile phones though. So important for bystanders to respect the privacy of all those who need emergency care

Download this as a PDF


19 JUN 2018

Health and Social Care: Life Sciences and Medical Research

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Further to the point made by Ian Austin, we know that the UK is a world leader in research into rare conditions, but that does not always translate into timely access to those treatments. The Secretary of State will know that there are many CFTR—cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator—treatments in the pipeline that could benefit people who are living with cystic fibrosis. Will he meet me to see how we can ensure that those are available in a timely manner for the people who desperately need them?

Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Of course I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recognise that this is one of the things that we are not good at at the moment. We have fantastic research, with amazing new drugs developed in this country, but our uptake can be painfully slow, and that is of course something that we want to put right.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


18 JUN 2018

NHS Long-Term Plan

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I recognise and thank the Secretary of State for his tireless efforts in making the case for this funding uplift and for a long-term plan. Will he now go further and set out whether, as a result of the extra funding, we will see an end to capital-to-revenue transfers? Will he also set out the role of transformation funding, because we all know that that is essential to get the best from the resources that we are going to add?

Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

My hon. Friend asks two important questions. As she knows, we have committed to phase out capital-to-revenue funding, because if we are to make the NHS sustainable in the long run, we urgently need to make capital investment in estates, technology and a whole range of new machinery, including cancer-diagnostic machinery and so on, and we will not be able to do that if we continually have to raid capital funds for day-to-day running costs. That was one of the main reasons why we decided that we had to put revenue funding on a more sustainable footing. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that.

Transformation funding is also important, because when the five year forward view was published, pressures in secondary care and the acute sector meant that a lot of transformation funding was sucked into the hospital sector and we were not able to focus on the really important prevention work that can transform services in the long run. I am very sympathetic to the idea that we need, if not a formal ring fence, a pretty strong ring fence for transformation funding, so that the really exciting progress that we see in some parts of the country can start to spread everywhere.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


13 JUN 2018

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill:

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Does he accept that disrupting complex supply chains in the motor industry can lead to economic disaster, but when we disrupt complex supply chains in medicines, I am afraid it means that people will turn up at their pharmacy and the drug they need might not be available on the shelves? The public will never forgive us for that. I am really sick and tired of hearing some colleagues say that that those who "lost" the referendum have no right to have any say in the type of Brexit we have.

Robert Buckland The Solicitor-General

As my hon. Friend knows, I was one of the 48%, and I do not forget that. That means that I do listen to the voices of concern about the supply of important goods and life-saving medicines. That is the Government's position. That is why we are striving to make sure that we achieve trade that is as frictionless as possible.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


12 JUN 2018

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his courageous decision. Does he agree that there is no majority in this House or in the country for a destructive, cliff-edge, no-deal Brexit?


Phillip Lee The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice

I agree with my hon. Friend on that and would add that I am not convinced there is a majority for such a Brexit in my constituency. It is fundamentally important that Parliament should have a voice so that it can influence the final outcome, in the interests of the people it serves. A fake choice between a potentially bad deal and a cliff-edge no deal—a vote between bad and worse—is not a meaningful choice. It would breach such fundamental principles of human rights and parliamentary sovereignty that we would not recognise it as being valid in other countries, and it is not one that our Parliament should accept. In all conscience, I cannot bring myself to vote for it in this bastion of liberty, freedom and human rights.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


11 JUN 2018

G7

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her resolve at the G7 in standing up for women's rights, the environment, free trade and the international rules-based order, but given events there, what appraisal has she made of President Trump's likely approach to trade deals with the United Kingdom after Britain leaves the European Union?

Theresa May The Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party

The President of the United States has always made it clear that he is keen to be able to sit down and talk with the UK about a future trade deal. We are also clear that we want to ensure that we have a trade deal that works for the United Kingdom, but let us not forget that we already have a good trading and investment relationship with the US. Every working day, 1 million people in the United Kingdom wake up and go to work for an American company, and 1 million people in the United States wake up and go to work for a British company.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


07 JUN 2018

Tuberculosis

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very powerful speech. Further to his points about the importance of public health, would he urge the Government, in their future strategy, to make sure that we look at NHS public health and social care as part of a single system?

 

Nick Herbert Conservative, Arundel and South Downs

Yes. My hon. Friend is probably aware that there is a collaborative TB strategy that was introduced by the Government, urged by the all-party parliamentary group on global TB, which the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall and I co-chair. That strategy shows very promising signs. It represents exactly the kind of partnership that we need between Public Health England and NHS England. I commend the Government for having introduced that partnership.

Most people do not realise that there is no vaccine for tuberculosis. There is a child vaccine, BCG, that some of us had when we were young, but there is no adult vaccine that works for tuberculosis—and no epidemic in human history has been beaten without a vaccine. The reason there is no vaccine is that there is market failure. Unlike HIV/AIDS, this is primarily a disease of the poor. With HIV/AIDS, there were people dying in western countries as well. The pharmaceutical companies do not have a commercial incentive to invest in the new tools that we need—better drugs, better diagnostics and a vaccine. Without partnership funding that comes from the Government, and Governments around the world who can afford it, we will not develop these new tools and we will not beat TB in the requisite timeframe.

Download this as a PDF


07 JUN 2018

Bill Presented: Privilege

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

There is a danger that people will increasingly come under pressure to make the judgment that, by not appearing at all, the reputational damage will be less, so the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. However, we have now come to a point where having the final backstop of a penalty—

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. Yes, the point has been made before that someone may want to call for powers to be restored to Parliament, but actually not when it comes to themselves.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. Even in other jurisdictions where people can be compelled to appear, they are not compelled necessarily to answer a question. For Mr Cummings to have behaved in the way that he has is a grave contempt not only of this House but, more importantly, of the British people.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

 I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

In closing, I pay tribute again to all those who do appear before our Committees and take the opportunity to thank all members of Select Committees for the work that they put in and all of our staff who do a magnificent job in supporting us. Thank you.

 

 

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


07 JUN 2018

Leaving the EU: Fishing Industry

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Given that unfortunately fishermen's rights have been traded away during the transition period, is not the best way to guarantee that we regain full control of the exclusive economic zone after Brexit to rejoin the European economic area and the European Free Trade Association?


George Eustice The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Fishing has not been traded away in the transition agreement. We have made it clear in that agreement that nothing will change for the time-limited period until the end of December 2020, but we will negotiate as an independent coastal state in that year, 2020, for fishing opportunities in 2021.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


05 JUN 2018

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I should like to start by paying tribute to Stella Creasy for all the work that she has undertaken in this area, and for bringing this debate to the House. The result of the referendum in the Republic of Ireland has been a great victory for women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies, but it has also thrown a stark spotlight on the situation of women in Northern Ireland. To my mind, it cannot be acceptable that in six counties of our United Kingdom, women are forced to make long, lonely journeys across the water or forced into the hands of the unscrupulous, or that they face criminal prosecution for making decisions that should be theirs by right. I believe that it is time for this House to act to protect their rights, as well as the rights of those everywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Jo Swinson Deputy Leader, Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs)

We heard earlier from Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson about the devolution of policing issues to Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that we are talking about policing women's bodies is part of the whole problem? That is not the right context for this debate. Supporting women to take these decisions is a health matter and a medical matter, and no woman takes this decision lightly.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Indeed. I could not agree more with the hon. Lady.

It is time for us to review the way in which we treat this issue and to move to a medical model. Since the 1967 Act, things have changed considerably, not only in social attitudes but in the availability of medical terminations of pregnancy. They were not available at the time of the Act. We have also moved on from the paternalistic attitudes that dictated that two doctors were the only ones who could be trusted to help a woman to take this decision. That completely negates the role of specialist nurse practitioners, who often undertake the role of counsellor in the clinics. It is an anachronism that we should still insist on two medical signatures.

Hannah Bardell Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)

On the matter of paternalism, does the hon. Lady agree that comments about women having abortions as a matter of convenience are deeply offensive, and that this debate must be characterised by decency and by respect for the views being expressed across the House? I have supported friends who have had an abortion, and I know that nothing about what they have chosen to do has been about convenience.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I thank the hon. Lady for making those points. If the House will forgive me, I am mindful that many Members wish to speak, so I will not take further interventions.

There is a further point about the impact of medical terminations of pregnancy using two medicines. Because of the restrictions of the Act, the second of those medicines currently has to be administered in the clinic, which means that women sometimes have to face the extreme indignity of travelling home with heavy bleeding and in considerable pain. It is time for the House to review the whole way in which this operates, and to shift to a medical model. We know that there is an opportunity to put this right with an amendment to the domestic violence Bill, and I say to Ministers that now is the time to plan ahead for that, rather than looking the other way and saying that this is purely a devolved matter. We know that a cross-party amendment will be tabled, and now is the time to be planning ahead and making the thoughtful, careful preparations that we need to make about the kind of medical regulations we wish to see in place.

Of course, there are those who say that repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 will lead to us being thrown into some kind of vacuum, but that is not the case. The hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out that the term limit of 24 weeks would remain in place, and there are other protections. For example, it is already an offence to supply abortion pills under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, and individuals can face up to two years in prison and a considerable fine for supplying such medications illegally. Equally, some say that there might be a free for all in people turning to back-street abortionists, with unqualified people carrying out surgical procedures—it has happened in the past—but that is not the case. That would still constitute actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, and unqualified people would not be able to rely on the victim's consent to the procedure as a defence under sections 47 and 20 of the 1861 Act, which would remain in place. Such offences would carry a penalty of up to five years in a prison and a fine.

The point here is that it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to visit a back-street abortionist if free, safe, confidential and non-stigmatising help was available free of charge on the NHS. As many colleagues have pointed out, we do not stop abortions happening by criminalising them and making an abortion difficult to access; we just make them happen in a less safe context.

I ask Ministers to start preparing for the inevitable cross-party amendments. I hope that the Minister in summing up will be clear that there will be no delay in the domestic violence Bill for fear of a controversial amendment, because an amendment will be tabled, and now is the time to ensure that all the regulations we need are carefully and thoughtfully consulted upon. As someone mentioned earlier, this process would allow the devolved Assemblies to decide what is right for their areas. The time is right for us to move from a situation in which women are criminalised to one where women are treated with respect and dignity.

I will take one further intervention from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Yvette Cooper Chair, Home Affairs Committee

I welcome the speech that the Chair of the Health Committee is making and her point that this is an opportunity to prepare and to consider such things in detail in anticipation of future legislation. Does she agree that the moving thing about the "Home to Vote" movement in the Republic of Ireland's referendum campaign was that so many women said that they were returning home to vote so that other women did not have to travel in future? They were making journeys so that other women would not have to do so.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

I absolutely agree. We were all deeply moved by the "Home to Vote" campaign.

Although the change happened in the Republic of Ireland, there are implications across the entire United Kingdom, because it has given us the opportunity to review what is wrong with the existing legislation. It is now time for the Government to plan ahead and to have a thoughtful process of ensuring that the regulations are right. I hope that this House will decide collectively to protect and respect the rights of women, wherever they live in this United Kingdom.

Download this as a PDF


04 JUN 2018

Home Department: Topical Questions

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

Further to the comments on the tier 2 application route and the effect on the NHS—it is working against the best interests of patients—will the Home Secretary consider the impact on areas outside London, the costs to NHS staff of making applications and the cost of their failure, in monetary terms and for patients? Will he also look at the effect on scientists and researchers?

Sajid Javid The Secretary of State for the Home Department

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I thank her for the letter that she sent on behalf of the Health Committee, in which she made some other excellent points, and I assure her that I am looking at it carefully.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


02 JUN 2018

Grow Gap

Just love the Grow Gap project at Blatchcombe transforming spaces, spreading happiness through gardening, impressive mangetout and other veg. Thank you to your amazing team of volunteers

Download this as a PDF


24 MAY 2018

Porton Down

Thank you to Public Health England for showing me around Porton Down today. World class expertise and research, keeping us safe and highlighting the vital importance of health protection public health.

Download this as a PDF


23 MAY 2018

Social Services: Minimum Wage

Written Answers

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 11 May 2018 to Question 141873, what progress has been made on evaluating the potential impact to the sector of sleep-in back-pay liabilities; and which care sector representatives have been consulted with respect to that evaluation.

Caroline Dinenage Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Government commissioned market analysis in order to understand the scale of the national minimum wage back-pay liabilities across the social care sector, which was open to all providers across the social care sector. This work is currently subject to further analysis and refinement.

Due to the sensitive nature of this work, no data that could be used to identify providers or local authorities has been shared with any Government department.

Officials meet regularly with various sector representatives including members of Learning Disability Voices, Voluntary Organisations Disability Group, Care England, the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, and others – to better understand the impact this issue is having on the sector.

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 26 March 2018 to Question 133443, on Social Services: Minimum Wage, what timescale he has for discussions with the European Commission.

Caroline Dinenage Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Officials opened discussions with representatives from the European Commission on 6 December 2017. These discussions are ongoing.

The Government will continue to engage with the European Commission to determine how any support that may be offered would comply with State aid rules.

Download this as a PDF


22 MAY 2018

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Sarah Wollaston Chair, Health and Social Care Committee, Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)

The clean air strategy rightly sets out the compelling case for action to reduce public exposure to air pollution in order to save lives and improve the quality of life for many. We also know that there is a compelling case to get Britain moving and get us out of our cars, and that cycling and walking, even where there is a lot of traffic, exposes people to less air pollution than driving. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that there is only a single paragraph in the strategy on active travel? I urge him to go further by strengthening measures to get people out of their cars and, where possible, on to their bikes and walking for their benefit.

Michael Gove The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. Today's strategy deals with a number of sources of air pollution, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for showing leadership on precisely the area that she draws attention to. We have spent £1.2 billion on a cycling and walking investment strategy. When my colleague Boris Johnson was Mayor of London, he introduced a cycle lane network across the capital, which has contributed hugely to an increase in the number of people cycling across the capital. I absolutely believe that we need to have a switch away from an over-reliance on traditional internal combustion engines, towards new modes of transport, and part of that is making sure that we can cycle and walk wherever possible.

They Work For You

Download this as a PDF


21 MAY 2018

Miles Briggs

I met this morning with Miles Briggs MSP to discuss NHS cross-border health issues and patient access to health care and new technologies.

Download this as a PDF


21 MAY 2018

NHS Clinical Commissioners

Thank you to Julie Wood the Chief Executive of the NHS Clinical Commissioners for coming to Parliament today to discuss NHS clinical commissioning, funding challenges and getting this right for patients

Download this as a PDF


21 MAY 2018

Care Quality Commissioner

It was lovely to meet today with the Care Quality Commissioner's Chief Inspector of hospitals, Prof Ted Baker to discuss protecting patient safety and the importance of tackling blame culture. It was also an opportunity to raise key local issue of rural ambulance services and response times

Download this as a PDF


21 MAY 2018

Community Buses

Thank you to Jesse Norman for meeting to discuss community transport and for listening to concerns raised by Bob the Bus Totnes and Coleridge Bus which are vital for communities across South Hams

Download this as a PDF


19 MAY 2018

Citizens' Assembly

Thank you so much to all those who have given up 2 long weekends to be part of the Citizens' Assembly on the future of social care. Really enjoyed joining you in Birmingham today

Download this as a PDF


See older posts (833 more)Loading...

See all posts (883)


Public Whip


 

If you would like to view my voting record it can be seen on the Public Whip's website, but you need to see how this information is compiled as it can sometimes be misleading.

What is on in Parliament

If you would like to see full details of what's on in Parliament this week, you can do so via the Parliament website.

Hansard

This will take you to all of my written and spoken material by date