Saqib Bhatti MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 May 2025 · Parkinson’s Awareness Month · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it, and I also thank him for the eloquent way he addressed the issue. I do not think I disagreed with him on a single thing. At the risk of repeating some of what he said, I will try to explain why I am standing here today. To be honest, because I had seen the stories of Michael J. Fox and Muhammad Ali, I was previously of the opinion that a huge amount of progress had been made in dealing with Parkinson’s disease. I was recently invited to meet people at the Parkinson’s Café in Balsall common in my constituency, where I had a moment of clarity—as Members of this House, we all go through such moments—and understood that there is a huge gap. There were about 30 carers and people suffering from Parkinson’s, who spoke about their conditions eloquently and bravely. This is a really timely debate on a day when many of us will have demands on our time, given the local elections, and it is a great privilege to speak. As the hon. Member said, Parkinson’s is a hugely debilitating disease. Although a disproportionate number of people get diagnosed in their later years, there is no minimum age threshold, as we saw in the case of Michael J. Fox—in fact, I think he was diagnosed at the age of 29. Parkinson’s can lead to sensory issues, voice changes, facial masking and, of course, movement issues. It really is a significant, life-altering condition, which obviously affects not just the individual but the people around them. I have been astonished to see the lack of care and support for people with Parkinson’s, for which there a number of reasons. The Parky charter has some reasonable and legitimate requests, to which I certainly lend my support. I will work with the Government and support their endeavours in this area, because there are about 153,000 people in the UK who suffer from Parkinson’s. We have a significant number across the borough of Solihull. I had the pleasure of meeting Jane Lindsay, who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019, and a lot of the things that she told me relate directly to the requests in the Parky charter. After receiving a diagnosis and leaving hospital with her husband, Jane did not know anything about the disease. She said to me, “I just wasn’t sure where this will all lead me.” There was a significant lack of support and information, so Jane, who had been in the teaching profession for almost 40 years and spent 17 years as a headteacher, decided that she was going to do something about it. With the help of local GP Sally Frank, she set up the Balsall Common Parkinson’s café in 2022—the date will not be lost on people, as it was at the height of covid. She found that being in touch with other sufferers of Parkinson’s was a “lifeline” because, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar said when he recited a poem, she knew people who walked in the same shoes and who shared the same experiences and concerns. Initially, there were only six members of the group, but it has now expanded to at least 30. They are very lucky, because they meet regularly in the church hall, where they get the facilities for free. I commend the church for offering that support. Jane, her husband and GP Sally Frank, along with friends and family, have done an immense amount of work to raise awareness and funds. They have done charity walks, golf days, sponsored half-marathons, afternoon teas, balls, comedy nights, quizzes and croquet games. They have raised over £230,000, which is really valuable. However, only four of the 30 people at the Balsall Common meeting that I attended had the support of a Parkinson’s nurse, which shows the sheer need for the specialist care that is required. The chair of the Solihull branch of Parkinson’s UK, Martin Sewell, said: “This is a great opportunity for us to reach more people affected by the condition in the Solihull area with information and support”. He specifically thanked the people of that Solihull village, who are able to meet in such a marvellous location at the heart of the community. I turn to the Parky charter. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned the workforce, which is clearly a really acute issue. That is demonstrated by the fact that only four of the 30 people at the meeting had access to a relevant nurse. I would really welcome the Minister’s reflections on how the NHS long-term workforce plan, which the Conservatives instigated when we were in government, will help to give more support to sufferers of Parkinson’s. As the hon. Member mentioned, there is a significant lack of data on Parkinson’s. I tried to get the figures for how many people in my constituency suffer from Parkinson’s from the House of Commons Library. We were given the waiting lists for neurology departments, but the number of Parkinson’s sufferers was not reported or published anywhere. That is a fundamental issue that I would encourage the Government to look at, and it should certainly be addressed at the very first instance. Some 55% of those waiting for neurological referrals wait more than 18 weeks, so a significant number of people have to wait for a very long time. Those who, like Jane, have very little information are in effect left to their own devices to figure out the next step. I greatly support the Parkinson’s passport, which the Parky charter calls for, not least because it would provide instant access to a blue badge and to free prescriptions. This seems to me to be a logistical or operational need, so if a doctor is able to assess someone and say that they have Parkinson’s, that should set the individual down a neurological pathway that allows this stuff to happen almost instantly. It is something that people with Parkinson’s should not have to worry about. We know how debilitating the disease is, how people will deteriorate and that there is no cure—such individuals are set down that path—so we should look to alleviate some of their concerns. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned PIP, and one of the things raised with me at the café was the issue of reassessments and of having to go through all that again. If the reassessments are to see how the individual has deteriorated and what further support needs to be given, that is different from having to go through the rigorous PIP reassessment to see if they are still entitled to it, which is really stressful for people who are already in a very stressful situation. I would greatly support anything that can be done about that, because PIP, certainly in this instance, is a basic lifeline to maintain a level of wellness. I would be interested to hear the Government’s thinking, because while there has been a lot of talk about PIP encouraging people into work, we know that these people are only going to deteriorate, so what support can be given? The real question here is about research and development. I know that the Government have committed £20 billion to R&D funding, but I would be interested to know what their thinking is about supporting the treatment of Parkinson’s. The hon. Member mentioned this, and I join his call for more funding in this field. I did not realise that a lot of the treatments were developed 50 or 60 years ago and that there has been very little progress since, so I would very much support any increase in funding. My remarks have been limited because the hon. Member went through the issues comprehensively, and I thank him for doing so. To steal one of his lines, the Parky charter is really a manifesto for dignity. Probably all of us across the House would agree that we do this job to help the most vulnerable, so if we can make changes to give these individuals dignity, I will certainly support them.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Parents up and down the country are anxious about the use of puberty blockers on under-18s, so I was disappointed to read that the Health Secretary has failed to intervene in an NHS puberty blocker trial, despite grave concerns about children’s safety. The landmark Cass review said that more evidence was needed, but will the Secretary of State show moral courage and common-sense leadership to ensure that these dangerous and irreversible drugs are never tested on our children?

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I stand today to make the case for accident and emergency services in Solihull borough. Ever since I was first elected in 2019, through covid to now in 2025, I have campaigned for better health resources in my constituency and across Solihull borough. Like many across the country, I am grateful for the national health service. Indeed, I owe my life to the NHS, having fallen seriously ill as a child at the age of three. It was an NHS doctor who saved my life after my parents had been told I had mere hours to live, and it was NHS nurses who cared for me. When my children were born, NHS nurses delivered them and NHS doctors cared for them and for my wife. Like many of my constituents, I am ever grateful for the NHS staff who were on the frontline during the pandemic, in the most difficult circumstances that one can imagine. I am proud to stand up for the NHS in my constituency. I have been fortunate to have campaigned for a number of successful outcomes in the borough of Solihull, where we have a positive story to tell. I supported the introduction of integrated care systems in the Health and Care Act 2022. As I said to the then Health Secretary, it was clear to me that we needed an organisation that would be more accountable to the public. The Birmingham and Solihull integrated care board was born as a result of that legislation. The Solihull Conservatives led a campaign to get a new urgent treatment centre, and our petition garnered more than 11,000 signatures. I am pleased that the UTC at Solihull hospital was opened in 2023. It has been vital in easing pressures on local services and for local residents, and I have used it for myself and my family. We also have new elective surgery units, built with start-of-the-art robotics. I am delighted that just a few weeks ago, they reached their 1,000th operation. On top of that, the brand-new locality hub at Solihull hospital aims to provide early intervention and urgent response care for patients in the borough, and it will be vital in providing much-needed relief for local services. Alongside that, the brand-new community diagnostic centre that I secured for north Solihull is currently being built. I had the pleasure of visiting the new facility, which is forecast to deliver almost 116,000 diagnostic appointments, including MRIs, ultrasounds and much more. As the Minister will see, we have a strong track record of delivering health services for our constituents in the borough of Solihull. However, one thing is lacking. It is clear when I talk to local residents that Solihull borough needs accident and emergency services. Solihull hospital used to have an A&E, but it closed in 2013. A recent write-up of my campaign by the Solihull Observer correctly identified that, stating: “Historically Solihull did have an A&E department but in 2013 hospital bosses admitted there had not been a full and proper A&E at Solihull for many years – with A&E services dwindling bit by bit over two decades.” The Minister will note that things have seriously changed. First of all, Solihull hospital is thriving. I am pleased that there has been a collective recognition that it must be nurtured and preserved. Silhillians who are in need of medical treatment for broken bones, sprains, cuts, stomach pains, rashes and minor burns can always book an appointment at the urgent treatment centre that I just mentioned at the Lode Lane hospital, but for anything more serious, residents are redirected to Heartlands hospital in Bordesley Green.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a really valid point. Of course, it is about not just the travel time, but the time that is spent there. As I will come on to say, there is discussion about the A&E at Heartlands hospital, which has similar issues.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, investment will make a big difference. That is why I think integrated care boards play an important role, because there is accountability all the way up to the Minister. It is also about how resources are distributed locally for the needs of the community. I spoke about the journey to Heartlands hospital. At any given time, it can take 40 minutes, and it quite regularly takes more than an hour. In a situation where every minute matters, I am afraid that is just not good enough for my constituents. It could quite literally be a matter of life or death. Solihull borough has a population of approximately 216,000 people, and that is set only to grow.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an important point. Every winter we see the strain on our health services. Our professionals in hospitals and ambulance services always make an important contribution. His second question is really for the Government. I will talk a little more about the future vision for my constituents and his.

• 27 Jan 2025 · A&E Services: Solihull Borough · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for all the work he has done on the matter, including the petition he launched, which I will come on to later. He is absolutely right, and he leads me to my next point. The Minister’s own Government have set out their planning reforms, which mean that valuable and precious green belt will now be built on as housing numbers are massively increased, putting our local infrastructure under strain. As we can see, that is a concern across the country, on a cross-party basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has made significant progress talking to his constituents on this issue. I know they feel exactly the same way, and I look forward to working with him. Significantly, more than 40% of our residents are reportedly over the age of 50. As we go through this especially cold winter, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, we must all remember that the winter is a challenging time not only for the NHS, but for our constituents. Cold and flu cases are at their peak and place additional pressures on the NHS. Every Christmas, we face a timely reminder that we are in desperate need of an A&E in Solihull, so I am grateful to have secured this debate early in the new year. Although I will not focus on social care today, I can assure the Minister that I will return to this topic at some point. I simply make the point that kicking the can down the road on issues such as social care will cause further anxiety to my constituents and exacerbate the strain on our hospitals. All Governments, of all ilks, need to deal with social care. The Government’s response does not deal with social care, nor does it deal with the problem of the country’s ageing population, especially in areas such as Meriden and Solihull East. The long-term social care issues faced by our NHS are made far worse by the fact that there is a national average of 14% more attendees at A&E than there were 10 years ago, which means that more people now face longer waiting times. As of August 2024, 65.4% of patients in Birmingham and Solihull ICB spent less than four hours in A&E departments, and that is markedly below the NHS target of 95%. I hope that the Minister might be able to comment on that and share any thinking on increasing that figure. I believe I have already set this out adequately, but it is worth repeating that residents in my borough have to travel to different areas to access A&E services. Given the size of the local population and the likelihood that demand for emergency services will only increase further, it is obvious that Solihull residents need to be supported by dedicated A&E services. That is because a dedicated A&E in Solihull borough will take pressure off other A&E departments, lowering waiting times across the whole area to the benefit of thousands of people in the west midlands. Can the Minister give any indication as to whether she considered those arguments in the previous correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and I have had with her? Moreover, my constituents and I are very concerned that this issue will become increasingly pressing because of the Government’s planning changes and their potential changes to the national policy planning framework. If the Government were to achieve the objective of removing consent from local people, the demand for local infrastructure—from schools to roads and health services—would go up and inevitably become unsustainable. I launched my petition in May last year to restore A&E services to Solihull hospital. I can confirm to the Minister that I did not know a general election would be called a week later. Within a week, we had about 1,000 signatures. I have had about 1,600 and I think my hon. Friend has had a similar amount, so we are reaching more than 3,000 residents who support our campaign. The petition remains open on our websites for further support. I assure my constituents that I will not falter or waver in my resolve to see the campaign through. Let me help the Minister. I understand that such projects do not happen overnight, but surely she will agree that a case such as this must be looked at. There has to be a long-term vision and plan to start to deal with issues, such as an increased population, which are clearly coming down the road. When my hon. Friend and I wrote to the Minister in November, we outlined the arguments for enhanced healthcare provision for Solihull borough. We were disappointed with the Minister’s response, which failed to cover some of the assertions we made, and that is why I put in for an Adjournment debate. I want to give the Minister another chance, because it cannot be possible that she does not have a view on long-term health provision for my constituents. For clarity, the Minister argued that the NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB was responsible for funding and implementation in the area. I am sure that is a matter of fact, but she must have a view, even though it will play a decisive role in decision making on these matters. It would be really helpful to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend if she agreed, at least in principle, to look at our plans, even if she does not quite support them. Will she agree to look at the long-term need of my constituents, especially in the light of the extra housing the Government are demanding be delivered on our greenbelt? It is a point worth making that as a result of the extra building, my constituents will be making huge sacrifices. The least the Government could do is to recognise that and provide the infrastructure to match. The Minister confirmed that the Government were committed to delivering the new hospital plan. She said the Chancellor had confirmed that in the Budget there would be a £3.1 billion increase in the overall departmental capital budget over this year and the next. The Secretary of State committed, in his piece in the London Standard in June, to delivering the new hospitals programme, so I was disappointed that there was no mention of Solihull borough in his statement last week. I want to ask the Minister a very simple question. The Government set out plans that take hospital building to 2039. Does that mean that our constituents in Solihull borough will not get a look-in from the Labour Government until then? Will it be 15 years before we can even start to think about new plans to support Solihull borough? It would be really helpful to get clarity on that. In our correspondence, my hon. Friend and I made the case for part of the £3.1 billion uplift in the NHS capital budget to be spent in our area. The Minister should be assured that we will take every opportunity in this House to make the case for an A&E in Solihull. Will she now instruct her officials to take a long, hard look at that and take a constructive view on the long-term plan? Indeed, just a few days ago—this is the point I wanted to come to when I was intervened on—it was reported in the Birmingham Mail that the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust is looking for a £200 million investment to create a new urgent and emergency care facility at Heartlands hospital, because the facilities are “disconnected and inefficient”, and that “patient numbers continue to increase, being cared for in buildings which are dark, cramped and not fit for the current purpose”. That could not be clearer. The report prompts the question: why should my constituents be subject to those conditions? They deserve better. They deserve the very best health facilities. I will not let up, and nor will my hon. Friend. We will keep coming back. With more than 3,000 people having signed our petitions, will the Minister do the right thing and back our campaign for a new A&E in Solihull? When I raised this issue on the Floor of the House, the Health Secretary wanted to know where I would spend the money differently. Perhaps the Minister has a similar line in her speech. This is not a party political point, but we would have chosen not to spend billions on trade union sweetheart deals in return for nothing. We would probably not have spent billions on GB Energy, which will not deliver outcomes or reduce bills. That money could pay for an A&E in Solihull many times over. Politics is all about choices, so I ask the Minister: will she do the right thing and choose to engage constructively, so we can deliver the best outcomes for our constituents?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at this moment. I have yet to be convinced that the legislation has sufficient safeguards in place. On slippery slopes, take Canada as an example: there, someone does not even have to have a terminal or fatal illness now; mental illness will be an acceptable reason for assisted suicide in 2027. Even though it did not start that way in Canada, that Pandora’s box has clearly been opened, and we risk embarking on that route today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has said that there is almost a guarantee that this situation will not change, but she cannot guarantee that future Parliaments will not change the goalposts on this matter. The slippery slope argument is about exactly that: when we embark on this journey, that is where we may end up, as the goalposts start to move. I am conscious of time, so I will end my comments shortly. We have had lots of conversation about the private Members’ Bills process, and the hon. Lady cannot guarantee that there will be sufficient scrutiny and safeguards. We have not had enough impact assessments or public consultation, and there has been very limited time to look at this piece of legislation. We are at serious risk of passing something that will do immense harm. I worry that in the future we will look back at this, after there has been abuse or coercion of some of the most vulnerable people, and we will come back to the House to discuss the damage that we have caused today.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the importance of this debate and thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for bringing it forward. Although I will be voting against the Bill, I still think this is an important discussion to have, not least because many of my constituents believe that it is the right thing to do. Of course, there are also many who feel that it is not the right thing to do. We have shown the very best of what Parliament can do here today. I came to my conclusion not because of some sort of zealotry or evangelism. I completely acknowledge that there are people who go through very difficult situations where they lose their normal faculties and are in immense pain. However, we need to be clear about what we are discussing today: we are talking about wholesale change to how the state deals with death. That is really important. The Bill would place people, society and the medical profession in a number of scenarios, and put at great risk some of our most vulnerable people. That is part of the reason I will vote against it today. The slippery slope arguments are valid in terms of the risk the legislation produces. We are talking about medicalising death, placing an undue burden on our health professionals and legitimising a role for the state in the death process.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Autumn Budget Impact · Hansard source

  More

  Approximately 220,000 people currently reside in the Solihull borough, and if Government planning reforms go through, the number will increase significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and I have written to the Health Secretary about the need for infrastructure and A&E services at Solihull hospital. Will he agree to meet us to see how we can make this Budget work for the people of Solihull?

• 30 Oct 2024 · NHS Winter Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate on what is an important day. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) has, I pay tribute to NHS staff who are dealing with significant demands in urgent and emergency care, which are particularly acute in a post-pandemic world. In the time that I have available, I will press the Government on the actions they are taking to increase vaccination uptake and to make use of available private sector capacity. Vaccination was the key to protecting the population from covid-19 and to ensuring that the virus could be managed and contained like other respiratory illnesses. Delivering the successful vaccination programme was one of the many benefits of leaving the European Union, which was a cause championed by the previous Government. We must continue the push to protect the most clinically vulnerable and to reduce hospital admissions for RSV, flu and covid-19. I welcome the national RSV vaccine programme that was launched earlier this summer, and I would welcome an update from the Minister about the uptake of that vaccine among eligible groups. I am concerned by recent data that shows that the uptake of the flu and covid-19 vaccines among eligible groups is lower compared with the same time last year. Figures on the uptake of the flu vaccine in the week commencing 20 October 2024 showed that the vaccination rate was 48.2% for all those aged 65 or over, which is lower than it was in October 2023. That means the picture for those people is worse. In the clinical risk group, only 20.8% of people had been vaccinated, which again is a worse uptake rate than that for last October. Given these worrying figures, what actions will the Government and the NHS take to promote vaccinations among eligible groups, particularly those at greater clinical risk? As other hon. Members have stated, many NHS hospitals and secondary care settings are working at close to full capacity. For that reason, we must maximise the use of private sector hospitals and other facilities to reduce the pressure on the national health service. The Telegraph recently reported that private health providers have written to the Chancellor and the Health Secretary to propose a major expansion in the use of private sector facilities and staff for NHS treatment. It was stated that private sector investment could help build diagnostic capacity and, “develop new surgery units and intensive care facilities.” If I am not mistaken, the Health Secretary has spoken about the use of private sector facilities, so will the Government support the proposals, which would see an extra 2.5 million patients treated in private hospitals with the potential to cut NHS waiting lists significantly? As we are talking about waiting lists in the winter, I want to turn to the winter fuel allowance, which is being cut. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact and pressure on hospitals from the withdrawal of the allowance? I believe that the Labour party put out an analysis back in 2017 stating that 4,000 people would be at risk of death from such a withdrawal. Can the Minister clarify whether that analysis is still correct and what the thinking is in the Health Department in response to the withdrawal? During the winter months, protecting bed space for elective treatment is particular important for keeping waiting lists down. That is why we must also build on the capacity provided by community diagnostics centres and surgical hubs in recent years. The previous Government invested £2.3 billion to establish CDCs, which represented the largest cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the national health service. In addition, the Independent Health Foundation has highlighted the positive impact that surgical hubs made in reducing waiting lists and increasing bed capacity. Despite their impact, Lord Darzi’s report on NHS performance made no reference to the role of CDCs and surgical hubs in helping to reduce waiting lists. On expanding the network of surgical hubs, and bearing in mind that the Budget is taking place in the main Chamber, it would be helpful to get some clarity on where the additional funding will be spent. Will the Minister commit to having more surgical hubs so that more patients across the country can access elective care quicker? Will the Minister also commit to expanding the network of CDCs, which have delivered more than 7 million tests, scans and checks since 2021. The last Government supported national health service trusts to increase elective activity after the pandemic, particularly through the elective recovery fund, which reimbursed trusts for the operations they delivered. However, earlier this month the Health Service Journal reported that Ministers were considering whether to pause or cap the fund. At the election, Government Ministers stood on a manifesto that pledged to reduce waiting times for elective care, such as on hip and knee replacements, to 18 weeks by the end of the Parliament. Pausing or capping the elective recovery fund will surely affect the Government’s pledge to cut waiting times and risk placing further pressures on national health service finances. I am sure NHS leaders would greatly appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point, so can she rule out the elective recovery fund being capped or paused this year? To finish, as has already been said, I want to encourage anyone who is eligible to make sure they go and get vaccinated in advance of this winter.

• 15 Oct 2024 · NHS Dental Contracting Framework · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Labour party conference that this Labour Government will “take inspiration” from Labour-run Wales on dentistry. That is the same health system in which less than 60% of dentistry courses are being completed in comparison with pre-pandemic figures—a rate that is far lower than in England. Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State for Wales is right and that Wales is a blueprint for what a Labour Government will do in England, or will they drop the bluster, get serious and commit to the dental reforms set out in the dental recovery plan, including a tie-in to NHS dentistry for graduate dentists?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Technology in Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by paying tribute to all the Members who made their maiden speeches. I congratulate each and every one of them on that nerve-racking experience. We may not always agree on many things or we may agree on a lot, but clearly they will all be formidable contributors to this House. I would also like to welcome the ministerial team to their place—and the new Secretary of State. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in his opening remarks, the Front Bench have my utmost respect for serving in public office. Being a Minister is a great privilege and we know that it also places burdens on those closest around us, so I genuinely wish them well. The civil servants I worked with in the Department, including those in my private office, were hard-working, dynamic and top notch. I am sure Ministers will have the same experience. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we will of course hold the Government to account. We will challenge them where challenge is required, but let me be clear: our sole intention is only to ensure that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of global innovation and technological advancement. Ministers may not believe me when I say it, but I do want them to be successful because their successes are the nation’s successes. It is in that spirit that I welcome some of the announcements on enhancing technological use in the public sector, because, as has been said, productivity in the public sector lags behind that of the private sector. The private sector has largely recovered from the pandemic, but the public sector remains less efficient than it was before. That is important for two reasons. First, the public sector—our services that we are so privileged to have, whether the national health service or our police, to name just two—represents 20% of the national output. Improving technology in our services means improving the very services that the British public rely on. Secondly, public services are funded by taxpayers’ money. It is not our money or the Labour party’s money. Hard-working British people pay their taxes for these services, so it is morally right that we all do all we can to make our public services fit for purpose and as efficient as possible. That is why the previous Conservative Government launched the comprehensive public service productivity review to address low levels of public sector productivity. In our national health service, we utilised AI to cut administration to keep more staff on the frontline and increase the speed of diagnosis, including better diagnoses of stroke, and lung and breast cancers. Our police officers were kept on the streets, rather than pushing pens, with the use of technology to speed up simple administrative tasks, which meant that crime fell in every part of the UK—except, of course, in Labour-run London. We see and welcome the value of better technological uses in the public sector. I have some questions for the Minister and for the Secretary of State, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer on his behalf. First, over the summer we were all appalled by the riots that gripped the nation and the role that social media played. Digital accessibility for our most vulnerable people matters, and part of that must be that the public have trust in using social media and online platforms. Antisemitism and anti-Muslim incidents have seen a huge rise online. Ministers will have met social media companies, including X. Will the Minister please clarify what actions will now be taken, as we move forward, to ensure that social media is not used to perpetuate and amplify antisemitic and anti-Muslim hatred? Secondly, one of my last acts as Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy was to instruct officials in the Department to start reviewing and refreshing the Government’s digital inclusion strategy, and to present options. The timing of the general election prevented that work from making progress, but there is no reason why it cannot continue now. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue that work? Will she commit to ensuring that the necessary funds are put aside, so our public services are more digitally inclusive? Conservatives recognise the importance of making our public services truly accessible. As the last review occurred 10 years ago, will she commit to ensuring that the review is carried out in a timely manner? If our public services are to be truly inclusive, they must be digitally inclusive, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am also keen to know what happened to the AI Bill, the legislation that the Secretary of State promised so often when he was in opposition, and what he intends to do about AI regulation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what assessment she has made of the number of AI companies that will be created as a result of his plans, how much investment will be generated, and how many new jobs there will be. Why was the AI Bill not ready for the King’s Speech? Let me now turn to the Secretary of State. He has had a very busy summer, but whether it was productive is another question. Countries across the world are brimming with ambition, investing in some of the most exciting and transformative technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and ensuring that they are at the forefront of global technological innovation. Let there be no doubt that this is a global race, and I fear that in its first few months in office the Labour party may already have done enough to ensure that this great nation of ours never comes close to winning that race. The previous Conservative Government set out an ambition to be a science and tech superpower by 2030. I note that the Secretary of State has not shared that ambition, so imagine my surprise when I saw that in one of the Government’s first big moments, one of their first big acts was to cut £1.3 billion of investment in supercomputer capability and related research funding. The Secretary of State talks about being a partner to the tech industry. Well, on hearing the news of the cutting of exascale funding, one tech entrepreneur said to me, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” Perhaps the Secretary of State—or the Minister, on his behalf—could clarify whether he fought against that decision or endorsed it. Was he able to stand up to the Chancellor, or was he so intimidated by her that he lost his voice? We know that the Prime Minister was unsettled by that portrait of Margaret Thatcher, so perhaps the Secretary of State was similarly unsettled by the Chancellor. Did he even bother to fight for Britain’s AI and tech entrepreneurs, or were the trappings of ministerial office so enticing that he forgot to defend the single most important investment that would have ensured that we maintained our top position in the global AI race for decades to come? But let me offer the hand of friendship. [Laughter.] I assure the Secretary of State that the hand of friendship exists. If he is worried about standing up to the Chancellor, we on this side of the House will of course support him. He does not need to be afraid. We believe in economic growth, so we will help him to stand up to the Chancellor. After all, his successes will be the nation’s successes, and that is our priority. Let me move on from exascale. Over the summer, it became clear that the Labour Government had capitulated to the junior doctors and given them inflation-busting pay rises without asking for any modernisation or efficiency improvements in return. Before that decision, did the Secretary of State meet the Health Secretary and insist on efficiency improvements or better use of technology, or was giving in to Labour’s trade union paymasters more important? He did say that they were joined at the hip, so perhaps he will be able to show what he did to fight for the tech entrepreneurs of this country. I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked him a question that he did not answer. I also note that the Government have been silent on the NHS productivity review, which was backed by more than £3.4 billion. Again, he did not answer a question, asked on this occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). Can the Minister now confirm that that funding is safe, or is it part of the Chancellor’s “black hole” calculations? Our plan and our review were backed by the NHS and would have saved 13 million clinician hours. What, actually, are the Labour party’s plans? When the Transport Secretary capitulated to the transport unions, did this Secretary of State meet her? Did he insist on better use of technology to improve our transport system, so that he could benefit consumers and protect taxpayers, or did he just watch from the sidelines and drink the Kool-Aid? This may have passed him by, but so far, in its first two months in office, the Labour party has already handed out £14 billion to its trade union paymasters in no-strings-attached public sector pay deals. So it is all well and good for the Secretary of State to grandstand at the Dispatch Box, but the facts are painting a different picture. I just hope that he can find his voice and stand up for the tech sector before it is too late. Let me explain why this is so important. We have already heard the Secretary of State repeat the farcical claims about the Chancellor’s “black hole”, having inherited a tech economy that was the third most valuable in the world; a tech economy that was being recognised across the world for its ability to nurture more tech unicorns—that is, more companies valued at £1 billion—than France, Germany and Sweden combined; a tech economy that was growing and creating millions of jobs annually, and attracting billions of pounds-worth of investment. If the Secretary of State did make the decision to cut the £1.3 billion of exascale funding and now talks down that same tech economy, and in doing so undermines those very tech entrepreneurs who will help to fund our public services for decades to come and makes it less attractive for investors to invest, he cannot sincerely stand at the Dispatch Box and argue that he believes in economic growth—not if his first major economic act was one of economic mutilation. I implore him to go back to the Chancellor and challenge this decision. He should not let the Chancellor’s political games undermine him or the tech industry, which has so much potential. It is in his power to ensure that we nurture tech innovation so that the tech start-ups of today can become the tech giants of tomorrow. I say to the Secretary of State that he should not squander this opportunity. Otherwise, his legacy will be defined by what he did not do, rather than what he did do.

• 23 Jul 2024 · NHS Dental Contracting Framework · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the right hon. Member and his new team to their places in the Department. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), prioritised access to care, including NHS dentistry, when she was Secretary of State. The dental recovery plan that she launched announced new dental vans to provide access to care to our most rural communities and coastal communities in England. We had agreed with NHS England that the first vans would be on the road by this autumn, and I know that that timescale was welcomed by colleagues across the House. Will he confirm that dental vans will be on the road by this autumn?