Author: johnredwood

The Department of Health and Social Care has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (86525):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how much of the funding increase for the NHS announced in the Autumn Budget and Spending Review 2021 will be spent on reducing waiting lists in the NHS in England. (86525)

Tabled on: 03 December 2021

Answer:
Edward Argar (Minister of State):

We have made £2 billion available this year to start to tackle the backlog. Over the next three years, we plan to spend more than £8 billion to support elective recovery and reduce waiting lists in England.

I was glad to see the government yesterday reported cases in hospital and deaths from CV19 have been falling. It seems that Plan A, persuade most people to get the vaccine, is working. So why the need for some new measures?

The Secretary of State told us that though there are only a few hundred Omicron cases in the U.K. they guess there are in practice 10,000 already. If that is so then the lower hospital cases is even more significant. They say Omicron cases are doubling quickly, but most people with it are not seriously ill or have no symptoms.

I disagree that people should have to show vaccination proof to go to an event or a night club. I disagree with people being told to work from home. People now have three options to manage their risk of catching covid. They can take a vaccine which greatly cuts the chances of getting a serious version of it. They can decide to avoid crowded places and observe prudent  distancing in what they do. They can agree homeworking with their employer where that works for both parties. They can decide to take the risk, as we do for most other diseases that we can catch from other people.

It is time to move on from worry about the virus. Trust  people to make their own decisions about how to handle the risk.

The government wants to stop people trafficking and smuggling from France. Its Border Force has been unable to carry out the Home Secretary’s wishes and deter or turn back the small boats. The government is now legislating  to strengthen its powers to  send people back who do not qualify as asylum seekers.

I sponsored Bill Cash’s  amendment to the Bill. We were worried that U.K. courts might refuse to implement  the law, claiming that European Human Rights or the UN  migrant Convention prevented them from doing so. We proposed a simple amendment to clarify that the  U.K. law means what it says notwithstanding any ECHR or UN interpretations.

The government refused to accept the amendment and Opposition parties were against it. The government promised to bring forward proposals to amend the Human Rights laws urgently , implying they agreed with our fears concerning this Bill.

It is a pity they did not just accept the amendment. The danger now is the courts will seek to undermine government borders policy yet again.

John Redwood:

If the legislation is carried in the way the Minister wishes, what impact will it have on the awful, vile trade through small boats? Will it stop it? Is there a danger that the UK courts will overturn the intent?

Tom Pursglove, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Ministry of Justice and Home Office):

The measures in the Bill are significant. We have recognised—the Home Secretary has consistently recognised this and I recognise it as the Minister responsible for tackling illegal immigration—that the asylum system in this country is currently broken. The length of time it takes to process claims is unacceptable and we need to improve the situation. The Government’s intention is clearly stated: to improve the way we process claims. We expect individuals who seek to claim asylum in this country to comply with the requirements, but of course safety nets are in place, for good reasons, so that it will be taken appropriately into account if people cannot meet the deadlines. We believe that progressing on the basis of processing claims more quickly and removing those with no right to be here will make quite a significant difference. Importantly, it is also about the work that we do not just with our nearest neighbours in, for example, France and Belgium—that collaboration is important and is delivering results, and we want to secure a returns agreement that will help to build on that—but further upstream in removing those with no right to be here back to source countries.

John Redwood: 

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent assessment he has made of the cost of the reorganisation of clinical commissioning groups.

Edward Argar, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care):

There has been no specific assessment. NHS England and NHS Improvement are providing guidance and support during the abolition of clinical commissioning groups and the establishment of integrated care boards. NHS England and NHS Improvement are managing changes required to adapt software and processes managed by third-party suppliers and we expect these costs to be absorbed within NHS England’s budgets.

The EU protests against Russia’s seizure of Crimea. The EU says it does not want Russia taking any more of Ukraine. At the same time Germany encourages Russia to put in Nord Stream 2, a second direct pipeline from Russia to Germany to increase German and EU dependence on Russian gas. It also provides a way of diverting gas that might otherwise have flowed through a pipe across Ukraine, with revenues accruing to Ukraine, to a different route and no Ukrainian revenues. For Russia Nord Stream 2 is a double win, weakening  the EU and Ukraine at the same time.

Both Germany and the EU are delaying signature on the regulatory arrangements and the contracts to supply gas via the pipeline. They are trying to place more of it under EU law. That will not of course make much difference should Russia at some date in the future decide to use the leverage it could exert from being a major gas supplier to the EU to demand concessions or changes of policy to its liking. For the legal route to work the other side both has to accept the jurisdiction of the EU court and to willingly submit to the views of the other party in the dispute. Russia would  not necessarily do that in practice whatever the initial documents might say.

The SPD led new German coalition government includes the Greens and is meant to be taking the faster pursuit of net zero seriously. Greens do not usually welcome new sources of fossil fuel delivery. I guess in this case they will be so hard pressed to find ways of implementing their new pledge to try to phase coal out of their electricity generation by 2030  that they will not think they can do without this extra gas as well.

Today President Biden will have a video conference with President Putin. Ukraine will doubtless  be high up the agenda. The USA has told the world of a build up of Russian troops near Ukraine’s eastern border. One of the many things Presidents Biden and Trump agree about is the undesirability of Nord Stream 2. As it gets close to going ahead President Biden will need to find ways to warn Russia off using Ukraine’s greater weakness to his advantage.

The NHS and social care has £5.4 billion of extra funding over the second half of this financial year. A lot of that funding is being deployed to create extra capacity, especially with work on discharges between the NHS and the social care sector, because people can be clinically ready to be discharged, but the care packages have not always been easily available.

I was pleased to see the PM and Chancellor have decided to set up a committee to seek better value for money from  departments. That used to be the main task of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Star Chamber was a committee to adjudicate the following year’s  annual budget where the Treasury and spending  department disagreed about the totals. It would  be chaired by a nominated senior Cabinet Minister, with a right of appeal to the PM . It  was not usually a good idea to exercise  that right for a spending Minister and was very rare. The new Committee would be wise to empower the Chief Secretary to push back more on wasteful or ineffectual spending.

They should start with the massive NHS budget. They need to pin down how much of the one off spending of the last 20 months on Test and Trace, vaccinations and responses to the pandemic can be ended, and to see how much of the spending in the NHS budget to undertake non covid work was in practice vired to pandemic related spending. They should want to see a proper costed programme for reducing waiting lists, backed by a proper manpower and recruitment budget. They should require clarity over how much extra social care is going to get, now that it is to share part of a nominated tax for part of its budget. The decision to hypothecate some National Insurance was a bad one, and will give  misleading views of how much these two expensive services actually cost. they should ask why NHS management has  kept the NHS so short of beds but long of management and management consultancy

They should review the progress with the administrative reorganisation. They should ensure no senior manager gaining a job in  the new structure receives a redundancy or other payment for their past service in the old structure. They should seek to retain and reappoint all the good people from the old structure without recruitment fees. They should economise on new logos, use up old administrative supplies and only allow property changes where that will result in savings. These are all points I have made about the impending reorganisation.