Early evening summary
The Home Office has published an economic impact of its illegal migration bill that says sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would cost £169,000 per person and would only save the taxpayer money if 37% of small boat arrivals were deterred. (See 5.09pm.) The report also shows how uncertain the government is about whether the policy will work. These are from Danny Shaw, the former BBC home affairs correspondent.
Finally, @ukhomeoffice publishes an ‘impact assessment’ if the Illegal Migration Bill.
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawNews) June 26, 2023
It admits: “The Bill is a novel and untested scheme, and it is therefore uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have.” pic.twitter.com/XTXxMzp4og
Be careful about claims the Bill will work.@ukhomeoffice says “evidence regarding the impact of policy changes on illegal migrant
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawNews) June 26, 2023
behaviour (including overstaying) more generally is more mixed..it is not possible to
estimate with precision the level of deterrence”
Risks of the Bill, according to @ukhomeoffice :
— Danny Shaw (@DannyShawNews) June 26, 2023
- practical complexities delaying implementation
- legal challenges
- displacement to other routes
- more unaccompanied children arriving
(No wonder they didn’t want to publish this assessment)
Reducing asylum application backlog would make it harder for Rwanda policy to be cost effective, official analysis suggests
The economic impact assessment for the illegal migration bill says that, in order to obtain value for money for the taxpayer (ie, for the financial savings to be higher than the financial losses), sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would have to have the effect of deterring at least 37% of people coming on small boats.
The document includes a chart showing that, if the average time asylum claimants spend in accommodation waiting for their claim to be processed were to go up from four years to five years, the “break-even” deterrence rate would go down to 23% (because asylum seekers not deterred would become more expensive).
But if the government were to get the average time spent waiting in accommodation down to just three years, the deterrence rate needed for the overall policy to be cost-effective would be 52%.
Rishi Sunak is committed to reducing the asylum backlog. This analysis suggests that, in doing so, the government would make it harder for the Rwanda policy to be cost effective.
Updated
Home Office claims illegal migration bill would save taxpayer £106,000 for every migrant deterred
In its press release marking the publication of the economic impact assessment into the illegal migration bill, the Home Office says the document shows that the taxpayer would save £106,000 for every migrant arriving in the UK illegally deterred by the legislation.
It says the saving would be the same if, instead of being deterred from arriving, a migrant were sent to a third country.
That figure is based on assumptions that 85% of arrivals need accommodation, accommodation costs £85 per person per night, and arrivals need accommodation for four years while asylum claims are processed.
The £106,000 notional saving is lower than the notional cost of deporting an asylum seeker to Rwanda (£169,000 – see 5.09pm), but the Home Office says that, allowing for the pace at which accommodation costs are increasing, the estimated saving per migrant deterred rises to £165,000.
This figure is much more convenient for the Home Office because it almost matches the £169,000 per head deportation figure, and largely counters the claim that, instead of sending people to Rwanda, it would be cheaper to let them stay.
The £106,000/£165,000 figures only cover accommodation costs. The economic impact assessment says there are other costs from having migrants in the country, and it says the average working-age adult costs the state £11,912 per year because they use government services.
The document also argues that deterring illegal immigration would also bring other benefits not captured in these financial numbers, such as a reduction in migrant deaths, a reduction in illegal people smuggling, and a reduction in the number of unaccompanied child migrants going into care.
Labour wants 'strategic partnership' with India, Starmer tells India Global Forum
Keir Starmer has said Labour views a free trade deal with India as “only the first step” towards building a wider “strategic partnership” with the country to bolster climate and global security, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Labour leader said the UK must “step out of the shadows in its mind” in seeking to deepen bilateral ties with the modern republic.
Speaking at the India Global Forum’s annual UK-India Week event in central London, which brings together politicians and business chiefs from both countries, Starmer said “resetting” the relationship with India would involve acknowledging shared values like “democracy of aspiration” between the two nations.
“We share that ambition [of a free trade deal] but also a new strategic partnership for global security, for climate security, for economic security,” he said.
“In this increasingly volatile world, on the collective security of defence cooperation between our two nations, absolutely, but also working together to support other nations which might come under external pressure.”
He added: “The trade deal which I hope we can negotiate … we see that only as the first step in a strategic partnership that goes way beyond just the trade.”
Home Office says Rwanda deportations would cost £169,000 per person and only save money if 37% of migrant arrivals deterred
The Home Office has published the economic impact assessment for its illegal migration bill. It shows the government thinks it will cost £169,000 per person to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
In a written ministerial statement announcing the publication of the impact assessment, Suella Braverman, the home secretary, says that these costs must be considered alongside the benefits of irregular immigration being discouraged. She says:
The economic impact assessment clearly shows that doing nothing is not an option, as the volumes and costs associated with illegal migration and the asylum system have risen significantly over recent years, driven by the rise in small boat arrivals. This increase of pressure on the UK asylum system, public sector spending, public service and accommodation capacity, and local communities, is unsustainable. That is why we are changing our laws and taking action to stop the boats.
In 2022/23, the current system cost the UK an estimated £3.6bn in asylum support costs alone and we are spending £6m a day on hotel accommodations. Unless we take action to stop the boats, these and other costs will continue to rise …
The economic impact assessment forecasts a monetised benefit of over £100,000 for every illegal migrant deterred by the bill. The impact assessment also considers non monetised benefits that would result from stopping the boats, including: fewer individuals undertaking hazardous and unnecessary journeys crossing the Channel; reduced pressures on public services and housing markets; and other wider asylum system benefits from fewer migrants being supported in the system.
She also says that, at current spending levels, the bill would need to deter 37% of arrivals to save money for the taxpayer. But if costs continued to rise, then by the end of 2026 a much lower deterrence rate would be cost effective, she says.
The economic impact assessment estimates that - at current spending levels - the bill would need to deter 37% of arrivals to enable cost savings for the taxpayer. However, the costs of accommodating illegal migrants have increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continue, by the end of 2026 the Home Office would be spending over £11bn a year (or over £32, a day) on asylum support. In such a scenario, the bill would only need to deter 2% of arrivals for the policy to enable cost savings for the taxpayer.
Updated
Liz Truss calls for Ukraine's admission to Nato to be fast tracked
In the Commons James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is now making a statement about the events in Russia over the weekend.
One of the first MPs to ask a question was Liz Truss, the former prime minister. Truss said there should be no letup in support for Ukraine, and she said its admission to Nato should be fast tracked. She also said there should be no talk of deals with Russia, or of sanctions being lifted, until the “war criminals” had been held to account.
In reply, Cleverly said Truss was making “incredibly important” points. He said Ukraine’s record in the war showed why it should “ultimately” be a member of Nato. The war had “truncated” the period it should have to wait, he said. He said other allies thought the same.
Updated
For the record, here is Labour’s five-point plan to help lenders that was announced on Wednesday last week. Their proposals were similar to those announced by the government on Friday, although Labour would require lenders to offer these options, whereas under the government’s plan lenders are agreeing voluntarily to make them available to customers.
Labour said its plan involved:
Requiring lenders to allow borrowers to switch to interest-only mortgage payments for a temporary period.
Requiring lenders to allow borrowers to lengthen the term of their mortgage period.
Requiring lenders to reverse any support measures when the borrower requests.
Requiring lenders to wait a minimum of six months before initiating repossession proceedings.
Instructing the FCA to urgently issue consumer guidance stating that borrowers making temporary switches to interest-only mortgage payments and lengthening the term of their mortgage period should not see their credit score affected.
Updated
In his reply to Reeves, Hunt said that, although Labour is asking for mandatory measures, it opposed proposals in the financial services and markets bill to allow the government to make those plans mandatory.
He also said under Labour’s plan lenders would have to wait six months before starting repossession proceedings. He said his plan went further, because it involved a 12-month delay. (See 3.53pm.)
Rachel Reeves says Hunt's plan to help people with mortgage costs just 'bad cover version' of Labour's
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, responded to Hunt. She said that the government plan was inadequate because it was voluntary for lenders. Labour would require them to offer extra help to borrowers, she said.
UPDATE: Reeves said:
Our plan [see 4.05pm] would have provided real help, but government have provided just a bad cover version. While many banks and building societies are doing the right thing by their customers, a voluntary set of measures is just not good enough.
The chancellor today said that the voluntary measures would cover 85% of the mortgage market. But what is his answer for the more than one million families who are missing out because their lender hasn’t signed up to this scheme? Tough luck.
Just how bad does it have to get before the chancellor recognises that mandatory action is needed to provide meaningful assistance?
Reeves also criticised Hunt for ignoring the plight of renters.
Where is the plan for renters who the chancellor didn’t even mention in his statement today, many of whom are paying higher rents because the mortgage costs of their landlords have gone up?
Updated
Jeremy Hunt gives statement to MPs about his 'mortgage charter'
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is giving a statement to MPs about his “mortage charter”. He says that lenders responsible for 85% of lending have signed the charter, which is being published today.
The key measures were announced on Friday, after Hunt’s meeting with bank bosses.
There will be no repossessions within 12 months of the first missed payment, Hunt says.
And customers having trouble paying their mortgages will be able to switch to an interest-only mortgage for six months, or to extend their mortage term so they can reduce their monthly payments.
Labour has accused the government of failing to boost defence spending sufficiently following the invasion of Ukraine. During defence questions, the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, told Ben Wallace:
He boasts about being the longest-serving Tory defence secretary, but in four years he has failed to halt this hollowing-out, he has failed to fix the broken procurement system, he has failed to win fresh funding this year even to cover inflation, and he has failed to stop service morale reaching record lows.
Does he not see it as a national embarrassment for Britain to go to next month’s Nato summit as one of only five Nato nations that has not rebooted defence plans since President Putin invaded Ukraine?
Wallace, the defence secretary, rejected Healey’s claim. He replied:
When [Healey] talks about my record in defence, just look at defence procurement, because he is fond of coming to the dispatch box about that.
In 2009 under Labour, 15% of projects coming out of the armed forces were over cost and the average delay was 28%. It is now 4% over cost and 15% of each project is delayed.
That is value for money and at the same time we have got a real increase in the defence budget, and we have injected £29bn of additional funding.
Lord Cooper of Windrush, a former adviser to various Conservative leaders who ended up as David Cameron’s director of strategy in No 10, is advising Keir Starmer, Rachel Sylvester reveals in her Times column. Cooper, who was seen as a Tory “moderniser” when they were a faction (it is hard to think of anyone in the party who would describe themselves in those terms now), was at school with Starmer, and as teenagers the two were in the East Surrey Young Socialists together. But Cooper is not just motivated by friendship; he left the Tories over Brexit, Sylvester reports, and wants Starmer to be PM.
She reports:
Cooper is not the only one who has climbed into Starmer’s rapidly expanding big tent. Nick Boles, the former Conservative minister, is backing Labour on the grounds that it is more “in touch with people’s everyday concerns”. Claire Perry, who served in Theresa May’s cabinet, left the Conservatives a few months ago criticising their “ideology and self-obsession” and praised Starmer’s “sober, fact-driven, competent political leadership”.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley, the former Goldman Sachs banker who was a Treasury minister under George Osborne, has just completed a review on start-ups for Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor. Like Cooper he is a crossbench peer and therefore politically unaligned, but he told me: “Sensible people are coming together in the national interest.”
Sylvester also says Cooper has told the Labour leader he needs to define himself more clearly. She says:
In 2009, Cooper, who was at the time in charge of polling for the Tories, asked voters whether they thought it was “time for a change” from the Labour government. An overwhelming 75% said “yes”, but when he asked whether they thought it was time for a change to the Conservatives only 37% agreed. This was precisely the share of the vote that Cameron went on to secure at the general election the next year, denying the Conservatives an outright majority and forcing them into coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Cooper has just repeated the exercise for Starmer. Again, the polling found that the public has had enough of the incumbents – 79% thought it was time for a change from the Conservative government – but when Cooper asked whether they thought it was time for a change to Labour, just 37% agreed, exactly the same figure he found at a similar point leading up to the 2010 election. In 2009, he warned Cameron that he had failed to sufficiently detoxify the Tory party; now he is telling Starmer that he has still not adequately defined his positive pitch.
Updated
There will be three statements in the Commons after 3.30pm: first Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, on the “mortgage charter” agreed with lenders on Friday; then James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, on events in Russia; and finally Steve Barclay, the health secretary, on a targeted lung cancer screening programme. Each statement lasts roughly an hour.
Updated
Post-Brexit import checks risk further pushing up food prices – industry group
The UK’s post-Brexit border strategy risks further pushing up food prices, according to a stark warning from representatives of Britain’s fresh produce industry. Joanna Partridge has the story here.
Unite says chancellor's meeting with regulators not enough to tackle UK's 'profiteering crisis'
Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite union, says that, by scheduling a meeting with regulators on Wednesday (see 12.44pm), the chancellor has in effect admitted that the UK is facing a “profiteering crisis”. But he is not doing enough about it, she said in a statement.
Here we have a tacit acknowledgement from the chancellor that Britain is in the grip of a profiteering crisis. But to be honest, we need to go way beyond talking shops with regulators before we can be convinced the chancellor is serious about tackling Britain’s epidemic of profiteering.
Tinkering at the edges is just not enough. Unite’s own research has shown that if domestic energy had been in public ownership at the time the crisis hit we could have saved every household £1,800 and cut inflation by 4%. Tinkering at the edges, and talking shops about the crisis are just not enough.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson made a point of stressing that there are rules against “profiteering” – although he also said he was not saying supermarkets were doing this. (See 12.44pm.)
No 10 says supermarkets should be passing on savings from lower energy costs to customers
Downing Street has confirmed that it is going to ask regulators to consider what they can do to ensure any savings producers make get passed on to customers.
At the lobby briefing, asked about Jeremy Hunt’s meeting with regulators on Wednesday, the prime minister’s spokesperson said the chancellor wanted to discuss what actions the regulators are taking, what more could be done to work together, and are there any potential barriers to them going further.
The spokesperson said there was “no legal requirement” for supermarkets to pass on savings. But he went on:
There are rules around things like profiteering – I’m not suggesting that’s the case here.
Equally I think we would of course want supermarkets and others to rightly pass on the savings they are making with the fall in global energy costs. I think that’s what the public would expect and they will vote with their feet if that’s not the case.
The spokesperson also said that, with interest rates going up, the government wanted to ensure that savers benefited. He said:
We absolutely expect banks to pass through higher rates to savers, as they are for mortgage holders, and we’re working closely with the FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] who we know are monitoring it closely.
It’s not only the right thing to do but it also has the potential to reduce inflation because people are encouraged to save rather than spend.
Updated
Decentralisation will come before abolition of Lords when Labour does constitutional reform, shadow minister says
Labour would prioritise devolution over abolishing the House of Lords, Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, has told the i in an interview.
She described devolution, in the form of giving new powers to mayors and local authorities, as the priority constitutional reform “which will need to happen early on”. Keir Starmer has said these decentralisation measures will be in a “take back control” bill in Labour’s first king’s speech.
Debbonaire also said Lords reform might initially focus on removing the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
At the end of last year Labour published a report from the Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by the former PM Gordon Brown, proposing various constitutional reforms, including abolition of the Lords and devolution of power away from Westminster.
Starmer said he was committed to the recommendations. But he also stressed the importance of consultation, fuelling suspicions that abolition of the Lords (which is unpopular with Labour peers, and which previous Labour government has failed to achieve) may end up being ditched.
In her interview, Debbonaire said the devolution plans would take priority. She explained:
Constitutional legislation takes time and it drains energy. We’ve got a lot to do to fix a country where nothing works from getting a passport to fixing potholes.
I do think the constitutional stuff which will need to happen early on is devolution because one of the ways we are going to deal with some of those problems is by devolving power to people who know what’s going on and have skin in the game …
To be honest I would prefer we got on with the concrete business of trying to repair the country first – but Keir is committed to constitutional reform, it’s very much his thing, he’s backed what Gordon has said, and that is what we will do. But whether that comes in the first year, the second year, I don’t know at the moment.
Debbonaire also said the “easiest” aspect of Lords reform would be removing the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the Commons. She said:
I think the easiest thing on which there is the most consensus among the public and probably even their lordships is that hereditary principle [there are still 92 hereditary peers] is unsustainable.
The 92 hereditaries were allowed to stay as part of a concession to peers offered by the last Labour government when it passed the House of Lords Act in 1999, which got rid of all other hereditary peers. In theory this was supposed to be a temporary arrangement that would only remain in place until full Lords reform was implemented. But further reform never happened.
Updated
Sunak says he will take 'responsible' decisions on public sector pay, and that more borrowing 'will make inflation worse'
In his clip for broadcasters, Rishi Sunak reaffirmed his determination to take “responsible” decisions on public sector pay, even if that disappointed staff. He said:
I think everyone can see the economic context that we’re in, with inflation higher than we’d like it, and it’s important that in that context the government makes the right and responsible decisions on things like public sector pay …
People need to recognise the economic context we’re in and I’m going to make the decisions that are the right ones for the country. That’s not always easy. People may not like that, but those are the right things for everybody, that we get a grip of inflation, and that means the government not excessively borrowing too much money and being responsible with public sector pay settlements. That’s what I’m going to do.
When it was put to Sunak that public sector pay was not pushing inflation up, he replied:
Government borrowing is something that will make inflation worse. So the government has to make priorities and decisions about where best to target our resources.
Sunak says lung cancer screening plan should help UK catch up with other countries on survival rates
This is what Rishi Sunak said in his clip for broadcasters in response to claims that today’s King’s Fund report (see 9.28am) showed the NHS was going “in the wrong direction” under the Conservatives. He replied:
One of the my five priorities is to count NHS waiting lists. That’s why we’ve put record sums into the NHS since I became prime minister, with record numbers of doctors, nurses, and new ways of doing things which are starting to make a difference.
But we also need to make the decisions that will modernise the NHS for the long term. Today’s example, rolling out lung cancer screening, will really help improve survival rates for lung cancer, something where we are behind other countries, but today’s announcement will help to fix that.
Also later this week we’ll be making a really important announcement. For the first time in its history, the NHS will have a long-term workforce plan to make sure that we hire the doctors, the nurses, and all the other GPs and medical staff that we need for the long term.
Q: There is new evidence out today about the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Do you think the government needs to take action against the Met in the light of their failings in this case?
Sunak says his thoughts are with Stephen Lawrence’s loved ones. He says this is an operational matter for the Met. They have said they are reviewing this.
And that is the end of the Sunak broadcast clip.
Updated
Sunak says it is 'too early' to predict with certainty outcome of instability in Russia
Sunak says it is too early to predict what will happen in Russia. But he is in close touch with allies, he says.
Q: Is the UK prepared for the collapse of Putin?
Sunak says the UK has been aware of the potential destabilising effect of the war on Putin’s regime for some time.
It’s too early to predict with certainty what the consequences of this might be, but of course, as we always would be, for a range of scenarios.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
I’ve spoken to the leader of the United States, but also France and Germany over the weekend. It’s a situation that we’ve been monitoring for some time, in the instability that will be caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
And what we saw over this weekend as an example of that, coming to the fore, it’s obviously too early to predict with certainty what might happen as a result of this, but I’m in close touch with our allies and we’re monitoring the situation closely.
Updated
Rishi Sunak has recorded a clip for broadcasters on a hospital visit to Nottingham. He said the targeted lung cancer screening programme announced today would save thousands of lives.
Asked about the King’s Fund report, and whether the NHS is going “in the wrong direction”, he said he had made the NHS a priority since becoming PM.
And he said another announcement later this week would give the NHS a long-term workforce plan.
Q: Doctors and nurses are leaving the NHS to work abroad because they will get paid more. Why won’t you pay them more?
Sunak says more than 1 million NHS workers accepted a pay offer from the government. It is “very disappointing” that junior doctors have not accepted their pay offer.
He says he has got to take a responsible decision on pay. He says they have to control inflation.
Q: Unions says public sector pay is not driving inflation up?
Sunak says the government has got to control borrowing. It is important not to make the inflation situation worse, he says.
Updated
Lord Bethell, a former health minister, has welcomed the announcement from the government today about targeted lung cancer screening. But he thinks the government should go further.
Lung screening helps catch smokers with deadly cancers so saves lives, saves money & supports the NHS. Hat's off to @RishiSunak @SteveBarclay. 🚀
— Lord Bethell (@JimBethell) June 26, 2023
It's still baffling they've backed off Khan Review recommendations to stop people smoking in first place. 🤷♂️https://t.co/G0epzTdCU9
The review by Javed Khan, published last summer, recommended raising the age at which people can buy cigarettes “by one year every year until no one can buy a tobacco product in this country”. Many Tories strongly oppose measures like this on libertarian grounds, and the government has not adopted the plan.
Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, has said that in principle he is in favour of Khan’s idea, but that he remains to be convinced that it is practical.
Updated
In an interview recorded on Saturday with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, Rishi Sunak said that public sector pay awards this year would be “affordable” and “responsible”, even if that “may not always be popular in the short-term”. On Sunday, in an interview with Sky News, John Glen, the chief secretary to the Treasury, signalled that this approach might involve ignoring recommendations from pay review bodies. Kiran Stacey has the story.
This morning Helen Whately, the social care minister, was also asked if the government might refuse to implement in full recommendations from the pay review bodies. She told the Today programme:
We are in the middle of considering some of the pay review bodies who have already reported back to us. Of course the government will … consider their recommendations and respond after doing that.
Updated
Jeremy Hunt to ask UK regulators to investigate firms exploiting price rises
Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, will ask industry regulators what they are doing about any companies exploiting rampant inflation by raising prices.
Some Conservative MPs are cutting the amount of time they spend at Westminster so that they can concentrate on trying to defend their seats, Lucy Fisher reports in a front page story for the Financial Times. She reports:
Conservative MPs defending marginals are able to apply for “slips” — permission to be away from the Commons — for up to one week each month to dedicate more time to campaigning in their home areas, and are being offered special help to try and improve their chances of re-election, several told the Financial Times …
Members with low visibility have been told they “need to raise their local profile more” by acting like “glorified local councillors”, said one MP involved. They have been urged by the party machine to mail out hyperlocal, single-issue leaflets, engage more with local press and attend a higher number of constituency events.
FT INT: Aborted Wagner insurrection lays bare the cracks in Putin’s authority #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/xyN4LfEum5
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) June 25, 2023
Fisher also quotes an anecdote, first used in the Sunday Times, about how Tories with majorities of under 15,000 have been told they are at risk. In their Sunday Times story yesterday, Caroline Wheeler and Harry Yorke said:
Conservative MPs have also been privately briefed on the predicted electoral meltdown. Frank Luntz, the US pollster and former adviser to Boris Johnson, sounded the alarm last Wednesday during a Q&A with the 1922 Committee of backbenchers.
During his presentation, Luntz asked MPs present to put up their hands if they had majorities of 15,000 or less. “He said, ‘You’re likely gone,’” one attendee said.
Luke Tryl, the UK director of More in Common, says that if Conservative MPs want to keep their jobs, they would do better focusing on making sure the government does its job properly.
My rule of thumb is in straight Tory-Labour fight, assuming no scandal/negligence a good campaign can shift ~500 votes vs national swing/demographics. Truth is would be better for MPs electoral prospects (& sense of purpose) to try and get things done in Parliament for last year https://t.co/9z5mwyTcPl
— Luke Tryl (@LukeTryl) June 26, 2023
Sad truth, but usually in focus groups no one has much idea about their local MP (a couple of exceptions) - even those in Cabinet. We did a group in a then Minister's seat a year or so ago & someone confidently assured me that (their very much living) MP had died a few years back
— Luke Tryl (@LukeTryl) June 26, 2023
Updated
Health minister rejects claim Tories 'failing on NHS' – but does not contest report saying other health systems perform better
Helen Whately, the social care minister, was the voice of the government on the airwaves this morning and, when asked about the King’s Fund report (see 9.28am), she did not seek to contest its findings. On the Today programme, asked if she accepted that for many cancers, and for conditions such as strokes, outcomes in the UK were not as good as in many comparable countries, she did not challenge the premise of the question. Instead she replied:
We know there are conditions and cancers, for example, and other major conditions like heart disease where, if only we could diagnose and pick these things up earlier, we can help people have much better outcomes.
And that is one reason we are moving to a more integrated healthcare system, with areas across the country looking across whole populations to be able to intervene earlier and support people more preventively and [provide] earlier treatment.
And on LBC, when it was put to her that the performance of the NHS was “shambolic” by international standards, she replied:
One thing we are working on right now as a government is our major conditions strategy.
It is looking at the big killers across the country, that includes cancer and heart disease, and coming forwards with the things we can do to really move the dial on how effectively we manage to prevent, diagnose and treat people with these conditions.
Asked if the Conservatives were “failing on the NHS”, Whately replied:
I will challenge that and one thing I would say is, on our commitment to bring down the waiting times, we have made real progress in bringing down some of the longer waits that have developed following the pandemic.
Updated
Rishi Sunak says NHS faces 'long-term challenges' as report says it is falling behind internationally on many health outcomes
Good morning. There are few institutions in the UK as loved and respected as the NHS. This is much discussed. But far less attention is given to a more unpalatable truth, which is that by international standards, the NHS is rather mediocre. It scores very well on equity (because it is funded by general taxation, and free at the point of use), but in terms of keeping people alive, it is “more of a laggard than a leader” on many measures, according to a report today from the King’s Fund, a health thinktank.
The King’s Fund has compared health systems in 19 wealthy countries. Here is an extract from its summary.
The UK has below-average health spending per person compared to peer countries. Health spending as a share of GDP (gross domestic product) was just below average in 2019 but rose to just above average in 2020 (the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, which of course had a significant impact on the UK’s economic performance and spending on health services). The UK lags behind other countries in its capital investment, and has substantially fewer key physical resources than many of its peers, including CT and MRI scanners and hospital beds. The UK has strikingly low levels of key clinical staff, including doctors and nurses, and is heavily reliant on foreign-trained staff. Remuneration for some clinical staff groups also appears to be less competitive in the UK than in peer countries …
People in the UK receive relatively good protection from some of the catastrophic costs of falling ill. Relatively few core NHS services are charged for and certain population groups are exempt from charges. But financial protection is weaker for some services, such as dental care, and there is growing concern that people in the UK may be forced to choose between funding their own care or enduring longer waits for treatment.
But the UK performs noticeably less well than its peers – and is more of a laggard than a leader – on many important measures of health status and health care outcomes. These include health outcomes that can be heavily affected by the actions of a health system (such as surviving cancer and treatable mortality), and outcomes such as life expectancy, which are significantly affected by factors beyond the direct control of any health system.
Here is the full 120-page report. And here is my colleague Denis Campbell’s write-up.
Rishi Sunak is doing a health-related visit today and he is likely to be asked about these findings. He is publicising a new lung cancer screening programme for England, targeted at people aged 55 to 74 with a history of smoking, and in a statement released overnight he admits the NHS faces “long-term challenges”. He says:
We approach the 75th anniversary of the foundation of the NHS, I want to ensure that it continues to thrive for the next 75 years and beyond.
And while we focus on cutting waiting lists in the short term, we must also look to tackle some of the long-term challenges facing the NHS, including lung cancer which costs 35,000 lives every year. Rolling out screening to high-risk 55-74 year olds will save lives by detecting up to 9,000 lung cancers a year at an early stage.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2pm: Dame Jenny Harries, chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
2.45pm: Keir Starmer speaks at the India Global Forum.
After 3.30pm: MPs consider Lords amendments to the national security bill.
3.20pm: Peers consider Commons amendments to the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill. It is the third time the bill has been sent back to the Lords, following its normal passage through both houses, because MPs and peers can’t agree on key issues.
And Rishi Sunak is on a health-related visit in Nottingham today.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
