---

Health and Education

It is a great delight to be present on a day when there have been so many sparkling maiden speeches. As Parliament proceeds, some hon. Members might discover that debate in this Chamber is not always regarded as the most exciting or amusing pastime of the talented, so it is a privilege to listen to the new Members. They are, of course, most welcome here, each one with their own style, each one with a strong commitment to their own constituency, and each one capable of giving every one of us a tremendous boost by bringing fresh ideas and a fresh approach to this place. After all, this is going to be an extremely interesting Parliament. When they are facing their third successive period of legislation, Governments must think deeply about their objectives. I am privileged to have been a member of the Labour party since I was 16, which of course was not very long ago, and to be present today to see the way in which my Government plan, not only to build on the exciting things that have happened in previous Parliaments, but to shape the future of the United Kingdom. The general election provided interesting examples of the problems now facing any elected Member. Going from door to door and talking to many people throughout my constituency, it became clear to me that there is an extraordinary disconnection in the public mind between what elected Members do and have achieved and what in fact happened in people’s ordinary lives. We talk about the money spent on education, but people seem to regard that as money dropped, like manna, from heaven and distributed on the ground. I pointed out to them that the fight for the just-completed primary school of which I am hugely proud had lasted 15 years before we got it going on the ground, and that the remarkable headmaster of that school had marched every step of the way with the architects to secure, not only a highly imaginative design, but one that responded to the needs of the primary schoolchildren in that area in a way that has not always been seen in the past. Only then did people recognise that Government have a strong role to play. To those of us who educate our children and grandchildren only in the state system and who use only the state system of health care, it is important to make that connection. I hoped that we would have the odd debate on transport. Perhaps when the Select Committees are reconstituted, I might once again have a word or two to say on the subject. I look forward to the time when I, with my excellent colleagues from all over the United Kingdom, am able to examine in detail the Government’s plans. Some transport topics are quite controversial—for example, the speed at which people are allowed to drive—and other parts of the transport system are equally interesting and important. Today, however, I shall concentrate on one issue. I spent many years of my early married life involved in the national health service. Three of my children followed me into the NHS, although only one is now left—the others, quite extraordinarily, decided to go on to make money. When we examine the Queen’s Speech, it is important that we ask a number of questions. Let me make it clear: I believe that the cash that has gone into the NHS over the past seven years is not only exemplary, but essential. In my constituency, we had 17 years of people saying, ““Each year, we will cut the budget. We won’t announce that that’s what we’re doing. We’ll simply say that we want efficiency savings: give us those, and you’ll get a much better health service.”” In fact, we got nothing of the sort. We got rundown facilities and primary care services that were not modernised and did not respond to the needs of the population. Since 1997, the major district hospital for my constituency—because of the boundary commission’s inability to get these things right, it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O’Brien)—has had a new mental health ward, new accident and emergency facilities, and a new eye service, which I opened. In addition, one of the new, famous and controversial special centres has been built alongside—but as part of the national health service, and specifically part of the Leighton hospital. Let me tell the Government that, in this Parliament, they will have to think and behave differently. I am not saying that they were uncaring, but they must now think seriously about the sort of legislation that they introduce. First, they need to take more time. There are no brownie points to be gained by simply having lots of legislation. Legislation has to be good legislation, properly and carefully scrutinised, not only by the other place, but by this House. Secondly, legislation has to respond to the real needs of the people of the country. Where the national health service is involved, the Government need to make clear where they want to be at the end of this Parliament. I am prepared to believe that, despite the large sums of money, the NHS has not responded with the speed and flexibility that some of us hoped for. I have spent my whole life among doctors and I know that, whatever they might say, they are not the most flexible creatures, although they have a high level of expertise and a great deal to offer. However, the aim cannot be only to increase throughput of patients, as if what is sought is simply a form of modernisation. That is not what the NHS is about. I ask the Government and the Secretary of State for Health to state one or things plainly. If we are to expand private care, what is the object? Is it a goad to produce better results within the NHS? Is it a replacement, based on the assumption that only private care provides a higher standard of care? That is nonsense. Or is it, in fact, designed to deal with an immediate problem, in the hope of bringing money back to the NHS after the problem has been resolved? If so, the system does not work like that—it never has and it never will. The Government have a special responsibility. They must tell the people of this country, ““You cannot do without a national health service. It is your right—your fundamental and important right—to have health care when you need it and not based on your ability to pay.”” That is the reason I joined the Labour party, the reason I remain in the Labour party, and the reason why, until the end of my days, I will fight for a national health service that is capable of responding to the needs of the United Kingdom. Above all, the Government must be clear. We talk about a customer-led service, but what do customers do? Customers go where they can get the best for their money—not necessarily the best goods, just the best for their money. That is not what the provision of health care must be. We must have balance; we must have breadth of view. Above all, we must never get into a situation where we have created machinery which, irrespective of what happens in future—God save us that we should ever have a Conservative Government again—could lead us directly towards the privatisation of all services, so that we go back again to the situation that existed when I was a child. That meant that working-class people did not get proper health care. They did not receive preventive care. They did not get intelligent support. In this House or anywhere else, I will not support anything that does not understand the difference between the provision of health care and the provision of moneyed services. I will have other things to say. I am a silent creature, but I would say that it is important that the future of the health service is fundamental and clear. We need the Government to spell out their intentions.