debates/debates2025-01-07a conversation_14
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-07)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-07a conversation_14

Adam Jogee:I pay tribute to my constituents Sheila and Joe Ward, who have long campaigned for vaccine-injured people and bereaved families following the death of their husband and father. The vaccine damage payment scheme has received 16,824 claims. When can people who are still mourning the loss of loved ones expect to receive the compensation that they deserve? \p Andrew Gwynne: In September the Secretary of State and I met the families of people who had suffered harm following the covid-19 vaccination, including my hon. Friend’s constituent Sheila Ward, and they raised the need for reform of the vaccination damage scheme. We listened closely to their descriptions of what they had been through and agreed to look at a number of options, noting that cross-cutting Government decisions might be necessary. We are also working with the NHS Business Services Authority to improve claimants’ experiences of the scheme, and to ensure that claims are processed quickly. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I remind Members not to walk past when the Minister is replying to a question? Please have regard for each other; this sets a bad example.

I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Edward Argar: The Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of his elective recovery plan mirrored that of Sir Saijd Javid in 2022, but one aspect was different. Our plan explicitly recognised the importance of the workforce being in place to deliver the 9 million extra tests and interpret the results, and it set out proposals to increase that workforce further. What plans has the Secretary of State to boost the workforce in community diagnostic centres specifically, over and above the plans that he inherited from us, to ensure that his elective recovery plan is deliverable? \p Wes Streeting: The shadow Secretary of State is right to say that we need staff in place to do the job. The additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the Budget is central to the delivery of this plan—I note that he opposes that funding, which is deeply regrettable—but we need to improve productivity as well. That is why the plan sets out steps to free up patient appointments that are unnecessary or of low clinical value, but, crucially, staff time in productivity gains is also important, so as well as making the most of the additional investment, we are making the most of delivering value for taxpayers’ money— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please help me a little bit. You have had a good run today—don’t spoil it. \p Edward Argar: On hospices, while the Secretary of State’s pre-Christmas hospice funding announcement was, of course, welcome, the vast bulk of it was in fact non-recurring capital funding, which cannot be used to help them cover the hiked employer national insurance tax on hospices’ most precious asset: their staff. What steps is he taking to ensure that they receive recurring revenue funding, to enable them to cover the additional costs? \p Wes Streeting: The £100 million capital investment we set out before Christmas is the biggest boost to hospice funding in a generation, and it comes on top of the £26 million that we announced for the children and young people’s hospice grant. The right hon. Gentleman cannot welcome the investment and keep opposing the means of raising it. Would he cut services or raise other taxes? He has got to answer.