UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Health

  • Laura Farris – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    Laura Farris – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    The speech made by Laura Farris, the Conservative MP for Newbury, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    I begin, as others have, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on this truly groundbreaking Bill. I will add a few reflections of my own, the first of which dovetails with his remarks on Second Reading.

    Our understanding of and respect for people with Down syndrome and equivalent conditions have evolved so much in my lifetime. Forty years ago, people with Down syndrome or something similar were viewed as problems to be managed, rather than people with potential to be realised. Employment, if it existed at all, was seen as an act of charity, rather than an opportunity for a person to be productive or to be in a role in which they could develop and thrive. The idea of someone with Down syndrome having a personal intimate relationship was taboo. It is amazing to think how far we have come. We have a far greater understanding not only of developmental conditions but of how they can exist on a spectrum.

    There are far more opportunities for education, employment and training. So many excellent employers in Newbury employ somebody who has a learning disability, but I want to give a particular mention to a young lady with Down syndrome called Karen who is doing a fantastic job and loving life at Nando’s in Newbury. The Bill recognises the specific challenges, particularly with health and care, but squarely places them alongside recognition of the dignity of people with Down syndrome and the idea that their families should not be scrubbing around for care and that that should be dependent on the provision of their local authority.

    While I was preparing my speech, I thought about how far we have come in Parliament in what we say about disability. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010, particularly the latter, contained important provisions about disability, such as the duty to make reasonable adjustments, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). It is notable that the focus in the interpretation of both Acts was on physical disability, long-term health conditions such as cancer, or mental conditions such as schizophrenia or depression.

    I know that I am right, because I refreshed my memory of the statutory guidance published to go with the Equality Act to see what it said about disability. It is an extensive body of work on just the subject of disability, running to 60 pages and giving example after example of how society should respond, and there is not a single reference to Down syndrome and scant reference to any form of learning disability. I mention that not to minimise the significance or value of the Equality Act, but to point out that we as a society have been reluctant to confer on public authorities, employers or anyone else much in the way of positive duties on learning disabilities. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that we would be nervous to say very much about learning disabilities at all. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for taking the bull by the horns and presenting the Bill.

    I want to conclude with remarks on two points that have been made by other Members but are important. The Bill will receive Royal Assent, but it is right that we should not ignore all the other people with learning disabilities, particularly when there is an intersection with health concerns and a need for ongoing adult social care. I have a niece who falls into that category, and she was in special needs education throughout her younger years. The majority of her co-pupils had Down syndrome, so it is fair to say that she was considered by the authority to have something similar. She is now a young adult who has had significant challenges with her health and some of her communication abilities, but she has a job and a very busy social life and she is living a really productive life. A lot of the issues the Bill seeks to address apply equally to her and to thousands of others. The difficulty is in the definition, and finding statutory language that would correctly encompass all those conditions is technical and challenging—I do not resile from that. Of course I respect the ambit that my right hon. Friend chose for his Bill, but I must put on record my ambition that it will go wider and that we will see soon progress from the Department.

  • Edward Timpson – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    Edward Timpson – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    The speech made by Edward Timpson, the Conservative MP for Eddisbury, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    It is a real pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who, in a more modest way than I normally remember, has established an important part of what has made this Bill possible: his energy, enthusiasm and drive to get it to this stage in this shape and at such speed.

    Many of us in this House will have different personal and professional reasons for supporting this Bill. For me, I must go all the way back to the early 1980s: believe it or not, I was alive and about seven or eight years of age. My parents had started fostering a few years before, and ended up doing so for about 30 years. During that period from the early ’80s to the mid-’80s, we as a family looked after Down syndrome babies, who came to live with us for weeks and sometimes months. We also offered respite care once a month for a long weekend for a Down syndrome boy in his early teens, to give his parents a much-needed break from an incessant and stressful time. Despite the love they had for their son, they needed a pressure valve in order to maintain their ability to look after him and keep their energy levels up.

    We were as happy as could be to provide that respite care. I recall it vividly, because it captured some of the most enjoyable images of our time in fostering. I recall many occasions with that young teenager, who had a couple of obsessions that infiltrated our household. The first was with the recording artist Shakin’ Stevens, who I am sure is also a favourite of all those present. That young boy was a fanatic follower of Shakin’ Stevens, and whenever he came to join us for a weekend, the first thing he would do was to put on our Shakin’ Stevens tape, and we would all dance together in the kitchen with real abandon. I remember it as an extremely happy time.

    That teenager was also fixated on the wrestling on “World of Sport” with Dickie Davies on a Saturday morning. He used to sit very close to the screen, because he did not have great eyesight, but he was transfixed by the bouts that were shown. Often, an hour or so would go by and he would not have moved.

    There was one scarier moment when we took him to a local swimming pool, where he was very keen to put on a mask and snorkel, go underwater and have a go at swimming. Unfortunately, it became apparent very quickly that he could not swim, so someone who was on duty had to jump in, fully clothed, and rescue him. However, the fact that he wanted to do those things and that he was given the opportunity was important, because, as my right hon. Friend said, we must ensure that the rights people with Down syndrome have are the same as for everybody else. That includes all those opportunities that we come across in our lives.

    That experience has led me to want to speak to the Bill—unfortunately, I was not on the Committee—as I am extremely supportive of what it seeks to achieve. There is clearly a lot of crossover between the reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, which I brought forward as children’s Minister, and this private Member’s Bill. As a learning disability, the estimated 47,000 people who have Down syndrome will potentially benefit from that system.

    The diagnosis will come extremely early in people’s lives, so there is no reason why an education, health and care plan cannot be put in place as early as possible. A focus on outcomes, whether educational, social or employment-related, can be built into those plans, which can go up to the age of 25. As we know, the life expectancy of those with Down syndrome has increased dramatically from the days when we were looking after Down syndrome children, so there is every reason to ensure that those outcomes are brought to fruition.

    In publishing the guidance that the Bill brings in, there is an opportunity to ensure that the reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, particularly to the code of practice and the local offer that must be published in every local area to explain the services available for those with special educational needs and how to access them, marry up with what is already out there. That will ensure that there is a clear pathway for parents and carers to know what is available and how they can access it.

    The level of support that those with Down syndrome need throughout their lives will vary considerably. It is important to remember that they are people with different individual needs, although there are certain services that they are more likely to need than others, such as speech and language therapy, physiotherapy or optician or hearing specialists. Therefore, the Bill is an opportunity to pull together the different routes to accessing key services.

    It is vital, however, that those children, young people and adults with Down syndrome have a sense of agency and that they feel that those things are being done not to them but with them, so that they have a stake in their future. For example, with the increased life expectancy of those with Down syndrome and some outliving their parents, they are having to be cared for by other means. There are recent instances of people ending up in an elderly care setting that is not necessarily as appropriate for them as it could be, which may have stymied the possibility of them reaching out to a more individual lifestyle and having support in the community.

    The Bill presents an opportunity to ensure that the guidance reflects the fact that those with Down syndrome need to be very much part of what they need for their future, so that the services that are built around them reflect that and ensure that the outcomes that they know they are capable of are reached. Although we have the Equality Act 2010 and the reasonable adjustments that go with it, they need more focus and definition through this Bill, for all the reasons that the Down’s Syndrome Association has illustrated so well in the case studies that it set out and that show the difference that will make.

    I accept the point about other conditions, but doing all that will provide a blueprint for how each individual person, irrespective of their condition, can be provided with guidance, support and wraparound services. We need to use the Bill as a way to demonstrate our commitment not just to those with Down syndrome, but to all those living with a learning disability for whom we know we can do better by bringing together the services that already exist more effectively. With medicine and our understanding of conditions improving, we can ensure that the way that we build services reflects the needs of all those who require them.

    I am hugely supportive of this Bill, for the personal and professional reasons I set out, and I very much hope and expect it will make a significant difference to many lives. It truly is the landmark that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset suggests.

  • Liam Fox – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    Liam Fox – 2022 Speech on the Down Syndrome Bill

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2022.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    May I begin by thanking Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given the Bill from the very outset? There are not many things that justify the downsides of being a Member of Parliament, but this is certainly one of the upsides—when we can see what will inevitably be a crisis emerging and do something about it in due time. That is one of the privileges given to us, and I am grateful to Members for their support in taking the Bill forward. They have not only supported it here in the House but advocated for it outside the House, where it has become one of the best-known private Members’ Bills in recent times in terms of public awareness of what is happening. That matters a great deal, because the Bill is not exactly the same as it was when we considered it on Second Reading—a subject that I will come to in a moment.

    The most common question that I am asked is, “Why have you been so concerned with this issue?” I explained on Second Reading that when I was growing up, the boy next door to me had Down syndrome. As a GP, I saw a number of those with Down syndrome and their families, and I saw the difficulties that they encountered. We regularly see one of my friends in my constituency, where I live, whose son Freddie has Down syndrome. As Members of Parliament, we have all recognised that having someone in the family with Down syndrome is not just a single problem to be dealt with; it is a conglomeration of problems. Families find themselves fighting on a number of fronts to get the quality of care that, frankly, they already have a right to. For me, that was why we needed a separate Bill.

    All Members will have had letters asking why the Bill could not have been wider—why we could not have included more conditions in it. I suppose there are two answers to that. The first is that private Members’ Bills have to be short and concise if we are going to get them through. Let me be very frank: getting a foot on the ladder of legislation in areas such as this is crucial. If we reach for too much in a private Member’s Bill, we can end up with zero. I think we have set the appropriate level of ambition in this Bill.

    We also have to recognise the complications that come with an extended Bill when it comes to the view of the Treasury. Many years ago, I was in the place of the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). It is definitely a case of gamekeeper turned poacher, but you learn a great deal as the gamekeeper for when you have to be the poacher later on when it comes to private Members’ Bills. I put on the record my thanks to her for her help. The role of the Friday Whip is not well understood outside Parliament, but when they are on your side, they can be very powerful allies indeed, and her support is very much appreciated.

    We also wanted the Bill to be separate because it is about a definable group in the population. Down syndrome is not something where there is any dubiety about the diagnosis and, as I said, there are complex identifiable needs. For example, we know that those with Down syndrome have a higher level of issues such as congenital heart disease, they have a higher instance of leukaemia, they have myriad ear, nose and throat problems, and the earlier they are dealt with, the better. It is difficult enough for parents to be fighting waiting lists and fighting to be regarded with sufficient urgency; if they are also dealing with the education system and trying to get help for a learning disability, that is an additional problem.

    The successes in medical care are the main driver for the Bill. When I was growing up, that boy next door had a life expectancy of 15 years. When I became a doctor in 1983, the life expectancy was about 30. Now, it is about 60. We should all be extremely grateful for that, but, as ever with advances in medical science, it brings its own problems. The problem, if we want to see it as such, is that parents will have this extra worry: “What will happen when I’m not there?” That is why I referred at the very beginning to a perfectly identifiable crisis that is on its way to us. If we actually take measures now, we can prevent individual tragedies. If there is a real justification for Members of Parliament having their own constituencies and dealing with real people, rather than being creatures only of a political party, it is that constituency link, which tells us about problems that need to be addressed and gives us the early warning sign to pass legislation to be able to deal with them. The complexity of the issues is one reason why we need separate legislation and why we had to bring different provisions into the Bill as it comes back for Third Reading from when it left the House after Second Reading.

    Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)

    The right hon. Member is making such a powerful point. He and many other Members have had numerous letters questioning the narrowness of the Bill. Will he reassure us that this is only the beginning and most definitely not the end of the process?

    Dr Fox

    Indeed. I would not even say it is the end of the beginning. It is on the way to being the end of the beginning, but this will be a perpetual battle. So long as medical science is able to make advances in genetics and immunology, this process will continue into the future and we will need to look at it. It is worth pointing out, to answer the hon. Lady’s question more directly, that we considered this in Committee. The Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), made it clear that in the guidance that will be issued, which I will come to in a moment, it is entirely possible to deal with the effects of other conditions that may have the same effects as those emanating from Down syndrome. In a way, yes, we are starting the process, and the way in which we change the Bill is absolutely key to that.

    On Second Reading, I think it is fair to say, because we can be a little self-critical, that this was a well-meaning Bill that went as far as we could. However, I made it clear that one big issue was missing—the enforcement of rights. It is all very well to make available new provisions and rights in law, but if an individual or parent does not have the ability to enforce those rights, if there are no mechanisms or levels to pull to enable them to get the full benefit of what the legislation supposedly gives them, ultimately we are failing to achieve what we want. We discussed two major issues. I purposely left them out of the Bill on Second Reading because we were not ready. There is nothing worse than poorly-thought-out legislation that we have to come back and amend. It is far better to think the process through, get agreement on both sides of the House and with the Government, and then proceed on the basis of unanimity, as happened in Committee.

    The changes were essentially twofold. The first was getting agreement from Ministers that they would issue guidance to local health and education bodies and planning authorities to ensure that healthcare, education and long-term care issues would be properly taken into account. That was a major step forward. Again, it answers the question of how we can broaden the effects of the Bill, even with measures that are not in the Bill. That means looking at other conditions that will face the same problems as created by Down’s syndrome. However, that agreement created its own parliamentary problem for us, because as those who listen to debates in the other place will know, guidance issued by Ministers that is not laid before Parliament creates a potential democratic deficit. That is why I think it was the first major step forward for the Bill in Committee when the Government agreed not simply that the Minister would issue guidance, or that that guidance could apply directly to the various bodies concerned—another important step in itself—but that that guidance would be laid before Parliament.

    Up to that point, I had considered whether we needed to put a sunset clause in the Bill, to have it completely reviewed to see whether it worked in practice. The fact that the guidance will be laid before Parliament enables us to look in real time at what is happening, including parliamentary Committees looking at how the guidance actually works. That is a huge step forward. I think it is actually precedent-setting and turns this from a nice Bill into a cutting-edge and meaningful Bill. That is a huge achievement and one thing for which the Bill will be most remembered.

    Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)

    I pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill and the manner in which he has done so. On the territorial extent of the guidance, as a Welsh Member of Parliament I pay tribute to him, but he will know far better than I, given his length of service in this place, that the Bill’s territorial extent is England only. The Minister has alluded to working with devolved counterparts, but may I ask him to use his passion and experience to urge the devolved Administrations to follow suit?

    Dr Fox

    I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It will not surprise him to hear that, as a committed Unionist, I will come back to that. We need to consider the quality of life of all citizens in the United Kingdom, not just those for whom we are directly legislating today.

    I turn to the second element of precedent-setting changes that we made to the Bill in Committee. As we move to the new integrated care structure in the health service, we will have a named individual on the integrated care boards responsible for the application of this legislation, should it receive Royal Assent. That really matters, because those who have Down syndrome, their parents, their families and communities will know who in the new structure is responsible for ensuring that the guidance issued by Ministers is given effect on the ground. I think that even the direct application of ministerial guidance—as it would have had—and parliamentary scrutiny would not have been not quite enough to guarantee the effect of the Bill’s provisions where it really matters.

    That is precedent-setting. I doubt very much whether this will be the only occasion on which my hon. Friend the Minister has to consider representations for named individuals to take responsibility, but I take great pride in the Bill being the first, because I think it is a major step change from what we have had. It will give the new integrated care plans the idea of responsibility for their application to named individuals, which gives us a point of pressure in the system that did not otherwise exist.

    Finally, I turn to the Bill’s application to one part of the United Kingdom. At the beginning of the legislative process, we had a choice. We could have set out a United Kingdom Bill and challenged the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for legislative consent orders. We could have said, “We dare you not to have the same provisions.” However, that would have become a debate about devolution, not Down syndrome, and I passionately wanted the Bill to focus on the needs of those with the condition and not become an argument about Government process or our constitutional relationships.

    Having said that, I completely take the view that a person with Down syndrome should not have fewer rights in one part of this United Kingdom than in any other. The Bill is making speedy progress through the House. I hope that it will make speedy progress through the other place and that, hopefully, it can get to Royal Assent before World Down Syndrome Day on 21 March, at which point we would be the only country to have legislated for it. That is important for our concept of global Britain, which cannot be just about trade, defence or economies; it must also be about our values, and I can think of no clearer signal to send than to legislate on this point.

    I say to those in charge of the legislative programmes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that it is unthinkable that people with Down syndrome living in those parts of the United Kingdom should have fewer rights, or rights applied at a later date, than those in England, for whom we are legislating today.

    When it comes to health, it is the duty of all those who run those devolved parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that everybody in the UK, irrespective of where they live, gets the same access at the same time to the changes to which we are giving effect today.

    This Bill began with great intentions, and ends now as a landmark Bill. It recognises that, in the provision of services, whether in health, education or long-term care in this country, Parliament will give not only rights, but applicability and enforceability of those rights in our systems. That is a change in the whole way in which we think about such legislation in this House.

    I am very proud to have been the mover of this Bill; as the mover of the Bill, I am also very moved by the support that has come from every party in the House of Commons and from the Government. I thank all my colleagues and, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be able to thank some others who have been instrumental in the progress of the Bill a little later.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Appointment of Richard Meddings as Chair of NHS England

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Appointment of Richard Meddings as Chair of NHS England

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 22 January 2022.

    I am delighted to confirm Richard Meddings CBE’s appointment as the new Chair of NHS England, I want to thank Lord Prior for his invaluable contribution over the last few years.

    Richard brings to the role a wealth of experience in both the public and private sectors, including years of management in the financial services industry.

    I look forward to working with him as we support the NHS to recover from COVID-19, tackle the backlog, and back our incredible healthcare staff.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Keynote Speech on the NHS and Labour’s Health Contract

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Keynote Speech on the NHS and Labour’s Health Contract

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 18 January 2022.

    Health Contract

    Thank you everyone and good morning.

    Two weeks ago, I set out the terms of Labour’s new contract with the British people.

    To provide people with the security, prosperity and respect they deserve.

    Today, I will concentrate on an aspect of security as I set out Labour’s contract for better health.

    Two years ago, the pandemic struck.

    As I speak, over 150,000 of our fellow citizens have lost their lives.

    I am convinced that a swifter response by government could have reduced that number.

    Covid affected every aspect of our lives. Children couldn’t go to school. Parents couldn’t get to work. We couldn’t see our families.

    Covid is still affecting so many of us.

    And the bravery and skill of health workers is helping to see us through.

    The least we can do to show the respect they are owed is to ensure that we protect the National Health Service.

    The NHS cannot look after us, if we do not look after it.

    This is a political crusade for us in the Labour party.

    The NHS is Labour’s proudest achievement in office.

    As Bevan said when he introduced the National Health Service Act: The NHS would “lift the shadow from millions of homes”.

    But this is also a personal crusade for me.

    My wife works in our local hospital.

    My sister is a care worker.

    And my mum was a nurse in the NHS.

    She took great pride in what she did all her working life.

    But she was also, sadly, a long-term patient of the NHS.

    I spent a lot of time as a child visiting my mum in hospital.

    I have never forgotten – I never will forget – the care my mum received. The respect with which she was treated.

    I want that level of care for everyone.

    We all need the security of knowing that the NHS is there for us when we need it.

    That will be what my contract will offer. And I cannot stress how badly it is needed.

    Rather than concentrating on getting through the pandemic and bringing down waiting lists this self-indulgent Tory party is having a fight about a leader who they should have known from the start is not fit for office.

    Boris Johnson is too preoccupied defending his rule breaking and as day follows night when it comes to the National Health Service you can never trust the Tories.

    We are witnessing the broken spectacle of a Prime Minister mired in deceit and deception, unable to lead.

    But while the Tories bicker and fight each other on whats app, I want to look to the future.

    Because the NHS faces new challenges.

    We are an ageing population a fact brutally exposed by a virus that hit the oldest the hardest.

    We must devise new methods of care to help with long-term conditions.

    We need to think about mental as well as physical health.

    And we need to think not just about how we treat patients but about how we prevent them from falling ill in the first place.

    The Present Crisis

    But before we can think about the future we must attend to the present.

    When Labour left office 12 years ago, the Conservatives inherited a strong NHS…

    Waiting times were the shortest on record.

    The overall mortality rate from cancer had fallen by 22%.

    That proud record really puts the failure of the Tory years into sharp relief.

    Today, NHS waiting lists are the highest since records began.

    6 million people in England – more than one in nine – are waiting for consultations and operations.

    I would imagine that most people in this room know someone who is either waiting for an operation on an eye, a hip or a knee. Or someone who is worried about the symptoms they are experiencing but cannot get an appointment to see anyone.

    The Health Secretary has admitted this backlog is going to get worse.

    And it is not good enough to blame all this on Covid.

    This mess has been much longer in the making and this government has to bear the responsibility.

    Waiting lists were the highest on record before the virus arrived.

    Average life expectancy had stalled after decades of improvement.

    And the health gap between the poorest and wealthiest parts of the country had increased.

    And why are we in this mess?

    Why have we got to this point, where the NHS itself is in a critical condition?

    It’s not hard to work out what has gone wrong.

    The NHS went into the pandemic short of 100,000 staff.

    In social care, there were 112,000 vacancies.

    Even before the pandemic, patients could not be discharged from hospital bed because there were too few places in social care and too few staff.

    The consequences of 12 years of Tory failure are coming in.

    This is what always happens with Tory governments.

    It always ends this way.

    And I am afraid it may well get worse yet.

    The Conservatives said they would train more GPs.

    The Health Secretary now admits he is not on track to meet that commitment.

    These broken promises cost lives.

    If there is no GP to go to people will end up going to hospital.

    A&E departments become the front door of health and social care.

    The first task of a Labour government would be to clear up the mess the Tories have made of the NHS.

    The last Labour Government brought waiting times down from 18 months to 18 weeks.

    We will need to do the same again.

    People who can afford it, are paying to go private.

    Those who can’t afford it are stuck in the queue, waiting for months, if not years, in pain and agony.

    That cannot be right.

    This is an issue about fairness, as much as it is an issue about health.

    People should get treated faster via the NHS.

    But it’s outrageous that people are being forced to spend more in the private sector simply because the Tories have run down the public sector.

    That’s why the Labour government I lead will invest properly to bring down waiting lists.

    We would start by recruiting, training and, crucially, retaining the staff we need.

    We have a five-point plan for the transformation of social care.

    We would make sure that every older and disabled person who needs care and support can get it when and where they need it.

    We would act on the principles of prevention and early intervention; an approach we call “Home First”.

    We would give disabled adults choice and control over their support.

    We would establish a New Deal for Care Workers to ensure they get the job security they deserve, and the rewards they have earned.

    And we would establish a new partnership with families to ensure they don’t put themselves at risk for looking after people they love.

    And, as we repair and strengthen, we need to learn to live with Covid.

    So that people can live their lives as normal supported by a strong health care system.

    I don’t want a government ever again to have to place tough restrictions on our lives, our livelihoods and our liberties.

    And I’m delighted to say that Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary will be setting out the details of our plan for living with Covid in the days to come.

    New Problems

    But the job will not be done once we have dealt with the immediate crisis.

    It’s much bigger than that because health challenges are changing all the time.

    In the first half of the 20th century polio, rubella, mumps, tuberculosis, and diphtheria were among the leading causes of death.

    The NHS’s treat and cure model proved a remarkable success.

    In the second half of the 20th century, these conditions were effectively wiped out.

    In 1950, the average life expectancy was 69, today it is 81.

    People live for much longer now with conditions that would once have killed them or which they would not have lived long enough to contract.

    Many of the pressures on the NHS today are the result of our successes.

    I am delighted we are an ageing society.

    It’s wonderful that so many people live so long.

    But an older society needs a different health system.

    One that is as much about prevention as it is about cure.

    That is a bit less about the community hospital and a bit more about the community.

    A health system that is a bit less about the system and a lot more about the patient.

    Many people feel insecure about whether the NHS will be there for them in the future.

    I understand that anxiety: I share it.

    In fact, it makes me more than anxious.

    It makes me angry.

    Angry that an important national institution is being allowed to decline.

    Angry that this government has the opportunity to do something good but is instead doing nothing.

    And angry that so many people who could be helped are suffering.

    The shadow that Bevan said was lifting from so many homes is falling again.

    So let me tell you what we would do to lift it.

    How we would protect an NHS free at the point of use.

    How we would secure health care for all.

    It is obvious that the NHS needs more money.

    But that is not all it needs.

    Do not think that the NHS is automatically protected when more investment goes in.

    The NHS also needs reform, so that it works in a different way.

    We set the NHS up in 1948, to treat the diseases of 1948.

    When we were last in government, we started to reform the NHS so that it was pointed more towards the patient so that it answered the needs of the time.

    That renewal process has stalled because this government simply doesn’t care enough, if the NHS falls behind.

    It will fall to us again to establish the changes that the NHS needs if it is to remain the great institution it has been for more than seven decades.

    From Cure to Prevention

    Let me give you a flavour of the change I have in mind.

    It has been said many times that the NHS is a national sickness service rather than a truly National Health Service.

    I see health as about more than hospitals and surgeries, as important as they are.

    It is about the towns and cities where we grow up, the food we eat, our access to green spaces.

    Health is about the air we breathe.

    It is estimated that, every year in the UK, air pollution kills tens of thousands of people.

    We would introduce a new Clean Air Act to tackle this silent killer.

    Poor health affects our earnings, our relationships, and our sense of purpose.

    And its effects are measured in lower productivity and higher crime, in family breakdown, and increased loneliness and depression.

    Labour would make wellbeing matter as much as national economic output.

    My preferred definition of well-being has been given by Angus Deaton, the winner of the Nobel prize: “all the things that are good for a person, that make for a good life”.

    This is about treating people with basic respect.

    So we would expect the Treasury under a Labour Government, to weigh every pound it spends not just for its effect on national income but also for its effect on national well-being.

    A good example of a policy for well-being is supporting our mental health.

    A Labour government would treat mental health as seriously as physical health.

    We would guarantee mental health treatment in less than a month.

    We’ll recruit over 8,500 more mental health professionals to support a million more people every year.

    Every school will have specialist support.

    Every community will have an open access mental health hub for young people.

    Under Labour, spending on mental health will never be allowed to fall.

    Stress, depression and anxiety account for 18 million workdays lost every year.

    We know that the more secure people feel about their jobs the less likely they are to suffer from stress and be absent from work.

    So we would expect employers to take wellbeing at work seriously.

    Under Labour’s New Deal for Working People, people will have the security of knowing they have the right to paid leave for family emergencies.

    Security and respect at work is good for workers.

    It is good for families.

    And a healthier workforce is good for the economy.

    That is why I envisage a health service in the future which is under less strain because a healthier population needs it less.

    Let me give you an example of prevention in action.

    In the early 2000s, every pub you walked into was filled with smoke.

    More than a quarter of all British adults smoked cigarettes.

    Labour banned smoking indoors, as well as cigarette advertising.

    Now just 14 per cent of adults smoke.

    Reducing the number of smokers preventing countless people from needing treatment and it freed up beds in the NHS.

    Just think of what more we could do.

    We know that high blood pressure and cholesterol hit the poor hardest.

    The consequences are cancers, heart failures, strokes.

    Much of this can be prevented.

    And usually the earlier you act, the better.

    A community in which all are respected is itself a source of better health.

    Because the connections we have in our communities are a form of security.

    These bonds have been eroded over 12 years of Tory rule.

    The social clubs, community centres, sports clubs, the green spaces, secure homes and safe streets.

    These are all health policies.

    There is a great example in Wigan.

    Like most local authorities the Labour council in Wigan saw its budget slashed.

    Its leadership responded with great imagination.

    They decided to let the people decide the future of their own borough.

    The people wrote the contract.

    The Wigan Deal.

    Which set out what both the people and the council would do.

    Already, life expectancy in Wigan has increased.

    On average, more than two years of good health have been added to people’s lives.

    And early deaths from heart disease have fallen faster than elsewhere in the country.

    This is what Labour in power can do.

    This is, in fact, what Labour is doing in many councils all over the country.

    And what the Labour government in Wales is doing too.

    From Hospital To Home

    I want the opportunity to add to this through central government.

    Because the range of what we can do now is quite mind-boggling.

    I was really struck by the power of progress recently.

    Many years ago, my mum had her knees and her hips replaced, when she was in her 20s and 30s.

    As was typical at the time, it took her six months to recover from the operation.

    She couldn’t get out of bed for weeks.

    By contrast, recently, a friend of mine had a hip operation, and he was on his feet the same day.

    The improvement in care in our lifetimes has been amazing.

    That’s what makes me optimistic about the NHS.

    That’s why, for all the neglect of the Tories, and all the big challenges it faces I am still upbeat about its future.

    We are still only beginning to explore what we might achieve.

    There are technologies that can provide us with early warnings about the diseases we might be vulnerable to.

    “Hospital at home” technologies allow patients to track and report their conditions with remote supervision.

    We now have access to the most incredible array of information about ourselves.

    Every day, algorithms are predicting our shopping choices.

    Imagine how information like that could be gathered and the insights used for our health.

    We can connect people with information and choices about their own health.

    Which give people greater security and control of their health.

    And that in turn makes us healthier, happier and more prosperous.

    Conclusion: Only Labour

    Sadly, the NHS is not getting better at the moment.

    There is no plan.

    No strategic thinking.

    If the NHS is going to continue to look after us, then it has to change.

    And only the Labour party has the permission to make that change.

    We founded the NHS.

    We understand it.

    We have reason to be thankful for it.

    I know I do.

    We are not out of the woods yet.

    The pandemic is by no means over.

    But we should not make the mistake of thinking that once we get through Covid all will be well with the NHS.

    It won’t.

    We have a government that we cannot trust with a precious national resource.

    Nearly three quarters of a century ago this party put into practice one of its cherished principles.

    Health care, collectively provided, free at the point of use to embody the idea of equality.

    It was a powerful idea then and it is a powerful idea now.

    And every generation has to find its own way to carry the tradition on.

    Because to prosper, we need the security of good health.

    This is the health contract that we will sign with the British nation.

    Item one, to tackle the immediate crisis to bring down waiting times by recruiting, training and retaining the staff we need.

    Item two, to make mental health as important as physical health.

    And item three, to shift the focus of health care to prevention as well as cure.

    To build the communities that care for us.

    To ensure that the NHS thrives.

    To look after the NHS so it can look after us.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Article on Fixing the NHS

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Article on Fixing the NHS

    The article written by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 14 January 2022 in the Guardian newspaper.

    The next Labour government will build a new Britain based on security, prosperity and respect. To do that, we must renew the very foundations of our country. That will begin with renewal of the health service.

    The NHS must be resilient, able to meet the challenges of the future, and focused on prevention as well as cure. It must be there to protect us in the future, rather than requiring us to protect it in the present.

    It is to the country’s great misfortune that at this crucial time we have a Conservative government yet again mired in scandal, led by a prime minister who is out of control, out of touch and out of ideas. Senior cabinet ministers are spending their days plotting how and when to dispose of him. Precious time is being wasted on the latest internal psychodrama of the Tory party instead of sorting out the mess they have made.

    Nowhere is that mess more profound than in the health service. Twelve years ago, the Tories inherited a strong NHS from Labour. Waiting times were the shortest on record. Today they are the highest since records began. Across the country, people are struggling to see a doctor, get the care they require or have a much needed operation.

    The claim from the government benches that all the NHS’s ills are down to Covid is simply not true. Waiting times were on the rise long before the virus showed up. Life expectancy had stalled. We went into the pandemic short of 100,000 staff in England and with patients unable to be discharged from beds. Lockdowns were necessary to stop the NHS falling over – but the reason it was in such a perilous state was because the Tories had made it so.

    Without a great renewal, the NHS will continue to be vulnerable to new variants and new viruses. That, in turn, will leave the country vulnerable. This is unsustainable. Lockdowns come at enormous cost to people’s lives and health, and the country’s economy. Being forced into a hokey-cokey of restrictions will only do more harm in the long term.

    Instead we must fix the damage the Tories have done, to make the NHS more resilient again. That means investing properly. Labour would get waiting lists down by getting staff numbers up: recruiting, training and – crucially – retaining the staff we need. We would treat care workers with respect by giving them real job security and rewarding them properly. And we would transform social care to give older and disabled people the support they need to live the life they choose.

    Our focus will be on the sort of renewal that has only ever been possible under Labour governments. Just as the Blair government refocused the health service on outcomes, we would switch the focus from simply treating illnesses to preventing them. When I was director of public prosecutions, hardly a case came across my desk where early intervention couldn’t have turned lives around before they unravelled. The same is true in health.

    Achieving this sort of change means rethinking how the healthcare system works. It will require us to focus on the patient rather than just the system, the community as much as the community hospital. If we are to keep people well and at home we must strengthen those services that in turn strengthen entire communities, such as adequate mental health provision.

    The NHS needs to be properly funded but, simply throwing money at the problem isn’t the answer. Instead, we need to think radically about how the NHS can deal with the challenges of the future. We would be forensic with investment. Technology has the potential to transform how we live and manage our lives, while also reducing pressures. It will be possible to get early warnings about diseases we may be vulnerable to. “Hospital at home” systems will allow patients to track and report their conditions, with remote supervision.

    Tackling the immediate crisis, future-proofing the NHS and shifting our focus to prevention is all part of Labour’s new contract with the British people. It will provide the security that comes with knowing the health service will be there for you and your loved ones when you need it. It will increase our nation’s health and wellbeing, giving us all the chance to prosper. And it will provide people with the dignity and self-respect that come with being able to have control over your own life. The Tories don’t get any of this. They think it’s enough for the NHS to merely survive. Under Labour, the NHS – and Britain – will once again thrive.

  • Wes Streeting – 2022 Comments on A&E Waiting Times

    Wes Streeting – 2022 Comments on A&E Waiting Times

    The comments made by Wes Streeting, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 11 January 2022.

    It’s unacceptable for almost half of patients to be left waiting, often in pain and distress, for more than four hours in A&E over Christmas.

    After a decade of Tory mismanagement of the NHS, we went into the pandemic with record A&E waiting times, leaving us in the worst possible position when Covid struck.

    It’s not just that the Tories didn’t fix the roof while the sun was shining, they dismantled the roof and removed the floorboards.

    Labour will secure the future of the NHS with the staff, modern equipment and technology needed to bring waiting times down.

  • Maggie Throup – 2022 Comments on the NHS Food Scanner App

    Maggie Throup – 2022 Comments on the NHS Food Scanner App

    The comments made by Maggie Throup, the Public Health Minister, on 10 January 2022.

    We know that families have felt a lot of pressure throughout the pandemic which has drastically changed habits and routines

    The new year is a good time for making resolutions, not just for ourselves, but for our families. Finding ways to improve their health is one of the best resolutions any of us could make.

    By downloading the free NHS Food Scanner App, families can swap out foods from the weekly shop for healthier alternatives and avoid items high in salt, sugar and saturated fat.

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on Military Helping the NHS in London

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on Military Helping the NHS in London

    The comments made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 7 January 2022.

    The men and women of our Armed Forces are once again stepping up to support their dedicated colleagues in the NHS, as they work hand-in-hand to protect the nation from Covid-19.

    They have shown their worth time and again throughout this pandemic, whether driving ambulances, administering vaccines or supporting patients in hospital and they should be proud of their contribution to this truly national effort.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments about the Flu Vaccine

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments about the Flu Vaccine

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 January 2022.

    It is incredible that more people aged 65 and over have received their flu vaccine this year than ever before. Getting your winter vaccines – whether that is your flu jab if eligible or your booster jab – is one of the most important things people can do this winter.

    Record numbers of people took up the offer of a free flu vaccine last year and the programme is expanding even further this year, with a record 35 million people in England eligible.

    Don’t delay – all those eligible should book their winter vaccines as soon as possible.