On Thursday 18th September, Mumsnet Founder Justine Roberts sat down with Wes Streeting to ask him Mumsnet users' questions.
Users were invited to submit their questions online ahead of the interview, and a selection of questions on the most popular topics were put to Wes.
Please credit Mumsnet when using.
TRANSCRIPT (CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)
JR: So thank you so much for giving us your time. We really appreciate it. We have actually had more questions for this web chat than almost any other, probably not quite as many as Boris Johnson in the middle of Partygate, but you're up there in terms of interest.
WS: Please let that be where the comparisons end!
JR: So I'm going to start off with a question from a user called ValHumphreys. You promised that women's health care would be a priority. Yet, apart from maternity care, there is almost no mention of it in the 10 year plan. Why must women continue to be so badly served by the NHS?
WS: So firstly, I would accept absolutely what Val was saying about women being poorly served by the NHS. In fact, there are lots of examples that I've come across where on things like endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome, you would think that the NHS is dealing with an alien species with a rare condition, rather than the majority of our country and a common condition. And similarly, you look at the gynae waiting list, they're some of the longest, even things that should be happening. The other week, I was being asked about why women are not being consistently offered pain relief when having a coil fitted or removed, which should be happening. And to be honest, you know, I don't, you know, I'm not a doctor and I'm obviously not a woman, kind of obvious to me that pain would be a factor in fitting or removing a coil. So I don't understand why these things aren't happening. So let's take Val's challenge on. So what are we doing about that? So there's a few things. There's, there's, firstly the action before I get to the strategy, because I think action is more important the words so on gynae waiting lists, we've already taken 10,000 of the longest waiters, so women who are waiting more than a year off those waiting lists. And we're trying some new things, including some weekend clinics, where we're trying to blast through the backlog in parts of the country where there are real challenges, Women's Health Hubs continue to roll out, and I think making a difference. But one of the things I've said to the NHS leadership is, as we're trying to deal with the NHS waiting list as a whole, what can we do to eliminate gynae waiting lists? How fast could we go? Could we get there faster than the overall waiting list, because I think firstly that would make a practical impact, but it would also send a powerful message about where women's health fits. The second thing is, the last government's women's health strategy wasn't half bad, actually, if it was, we have lots of stuff in there that we welcomed. So I've asked Lesley Regan, government's Women's Health Ambassador to do an update of that. So look at what we've done, and ticked off, what do we have yet to do, and where are the things that maybe aren't in there but should be in there, as well as looking at some of the big campaigns out there, like menopause mandate and the ask they're making. So we're looking at all of those things. So I hope people will see a real drumbeat of action not just words…
JR: When do you expect to get that report from Lesley Regan…
WS: Well I'd like to have it out by the end of the year, not least because and these things really mustn't be pitted in competition or one being at the expense of the other. But I'm conscious that government's doing the first ever Men's Health Strategy, and there's a lot of buzz and excitement about it. I think it's a necessary strategy, I also think lots of women would welcome because, you know, women care about husbands, sons, brothers all the rest of it. But I’m really worried about the perception that if we're focusing with a men's health strategy, that women’s health has fallen even further off the agenda than it already has over the years. So I hope people will see from us action, not just words.
JR: Okay and a further thing from a user called Wowee when are GPs going to be given the extra training on women's health, which has been much neglected in medical training over the years, things like menopause and stuff like that?
WS: Yeah. So two things. Firstly, we're working with the Royal College of GPS and the BMA on this. I'm trying to do two things simultaneously. One is to improve women's experience of General Practice. I mean, a member of my family, when she went to see a GP repeatedly in pain, only when she took her partner along and he said, look, she really needs pain relief, that the male doctor responded.
JR: A lot of stories like that on Mumsnet.
WS: Yeah, and we've really, we've just got to confront the profession with it and get them to raise their games cos this is where I get so many complaints. So not letting GPs off the hook on that and working with them to upskill, but also giving women other routes around as well. And that's why I think Women's Health Hubs are really important. Because if you are stuck in that circular conversation, which is one of the reasons why it takes eight years to get an endometriosis diagnosis in too many cases, there is another route, and there's a route to people who really are committed to women's health, have chosen to work in women's health and are more likely to say, yeah, you don't need the pill. There's something else going on here. Let's get you the right diagnostics.
JR: Okay, so specifically on maternity MelMelMelanie asked, says the terms of reference for the maternity review announced this week didn't include some of the worst performing trusts in the country. Can you tell us why your approach has changed since June, when you said the review would look in detail, up to 10 maternity units that are giving us the greatest cause for concern?
WS: Yes, we're actually doing a few more now. We're doing 14, and we are also we look we used a range of metrics to determine what those 14 are. So those are the 14 that were determined to be giving us greatest cause forf concern across a range of issues. Valerie Amos is, that independent investigation is underway. But just to be clear, those are the 14 trusts that we're sort of diving into, but we are looking at maternity services as a whole. And I think what's there's a fundamental problem going on in maternity, around culture, but there's also, I think, a challenge that over the years, we've seen review after review after review, countless recommendations upon recommendations, upon recommendation. And I think the system's slightly drowning in complexity. And I think in some cases, there's genuine confusion, and in some cases, people in maternity units are being given contradictory direction on the same things, which isn't fair on them. In other areas, I think the confusion is and the volume of recommendations thing is a bit of an excuse ‘oh we can't possibly do all these things’. So if we strip away a lot of that and give the system clear direction, and we hold them to it, I think we're more likely to drive improvement. And the final thing, I would say, having spent so much time with victims of some of the worst maternity scandals we've got to get right into firstly, how do we make sure that women are heard and listened to, which isn't unique to maternity, it's an NHS wide problem, but it's particularly acute in maternity. And when something goes wrong, how do we make sure the starting point for the NHS is, we get this right, and if not, what we're going to do about it, and we've got to inform the family. I think too often you see a culture of backside covering. And the question is, how do we deny liability, rather than, did we do something wrong? So with that is a really big culture we've got to change.
JR: Okay, that any way you think you're going to do that. Because, I mean, this comes through again and again. You know the questions on Mumsnet it’s the culture that’s the problem…
WS: Yeah. So, I mean, look, there's the consequences for when it goes wrong. The Hillsborough Law has got a lot of attention this week, justifiably as a moment of triumph for the families of the 97 and the wider campaigners. But actually the most powerful thing for me about the Hillsborough Law isn't simply what it says about our rear view mirror, but what it will do in the future in terms of duty of candour, particularly in the NHS. So I think that's going to be a powerful and consequential law for the NHS. Real teeth there. Ultimately, we've got to create a culture inside the NHS, which you know, you can do that a bit with structures and levers and funding. It's also about good leadership, good management, and an environment where obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives, you know, can say something's going wrong here. We're missing something, and to be honest about it.
JR: Okay so Mumsnet obviously, we've got 8 million mums, but lots of them work in the health service. We've got loads of doctors, loads of nurses, and we had many, many questions from people who worked in the NHS. And here's an example of one from a user called Exitlight. When do you plan to tell my colleagues and I what is happening with our jobs? We're at an ICB and have been living in limbo since the sweeping announcement of cuts. There's been no thought or consideration to the stress this is causing. It's horrible and not conducive to a good working environment.
WS: So firstly, I would absolutely admit that what we've just heard described there in terms of one woman's experience, I think, is reflected across the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England and ICBs, because we're doing a big change program trying to radically reduce the size of the centre, eliminate duplication, waste and inefficiency, and push more power, more resources and responsibility to the front line. Inevitably, when you're doing something like that, it does impact on people's lives and livelihoods, and that is not lost on me. There are good reasons why doing something and doing change on this scale is complicated and takes time. I absolutely recognise that for lots of people, they're still left with uncertainty, and we're trying to unblock that so that in the coming weeks, we can give people the clarity about their own futures and decisions. So I think that's absolutely fair criticism. I'd absolutely take it on the chin.
JR: But it’s in the coming weeks?
WS: Yeah.
JR: On waiting times UncertainPerson says my child is now in year three, and hasn't had the follow up appointment since failing his reception hearing screen. Now we've moved house. He's gone back to the back of the queue again. Why is the government not prioritising clearing the waiting lists for children when long pauses in healthcare have a greater impact on them.
WS: So this is something that I've been looking at with Bridget Phillipson our education secretary, because whether it's physical health, as in this case, or mental health, as we see in so many cases, if children are waiting years, I mean, I mean, I've seen cases of teenagers who've waited their entire secondary education for mental health support, and you end up paying a heavy price down the line in terms of picking up consequences of that, in terms of the impact on their attainment and their learning and missed education. So we are looking at what we can do to kind of to give a greater emphasis to paediatrics and to the children's waiting list, it’s going to take time, to be honest. And one of the things I'll definitely pick up on a practical level is what do we do when kids move house to make sure that they're not disadvantaged and chucked to the back of the queue.
JR: On kids and social media. DawnAtwood asks you recently announced a ban on energy drinks for under 16, saying and I quote ‘you can see the impact on the health concentration and learning’, given the well documented negative effects of social media on young people's mental health, concentration and learning, why not propose similar restrictions on that? Is it something you're looking at?
WS: Yes, is the short answer to that. I am concerned about mobile phone use and the impact on education and health and well being. And myself, Bridget Phillipson and the Education Secretary, Peter Kyle who was the technology secretary, who's gone to business, but you know, his successor, Liz Kendall, is in exactly the same space. We want this to work and to work effectively. And I don't want to take the technology away from children and young people, because they're growing up in a world where it's going to be ubiquitous. And I want them to feel confident in using it, but using it safely. And I think the kind of the right analogy from this, from my point of view, is, is, you wouldn't just kind of give kids a box of tools and say, off you go, but you would want them to kind of learn how to use a hammer and nails and a screwdriver and this is no different. You've got to support them in a controlled environment, where you can kind of see what's going on and support them to make safe decisions. And we have not cracked this yet. I mean, a lot of schools have banned mobile phones in classrooms, that's a very good thing. But I'm also conscious that whether it's what they're looking at and the content they're accessing and the risk of being groomed and radicalised in the most extreme cases, or just kind of have their attention spans fired through doom scrolling, which, by the way, I am guilty of, or indeed, if I think back to my own experiences of being bullied at school, the thing about these devices, yes, they can provide an online community of support and friendship and entertainment and learning. Those are great things going on on that device. But also when I left school, I left the bullying at the school gate and went home to kind of safety and comfort all those things…
JR: What this government so far has floated an idea of a two hour per platform limit, which is, I have to say, ridiculously, it's just ridiculous.
WS: You should keep on. You should keep on holding our feet to the fire on this issue. I think the voice of parents is particularly powerful in this as the voice of young people themselves.
JR: Opinionpollcatcat says it's been five months since the Supreme Court ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. Why does the NHS still operate policies that state that male adults and children will be admitted to female wards, changing areas and toilets if those male people identify as trans, and she works in an NHS Trust where that's still happening.
WS: So I don't think it should be happening, and we’re still waiting for the EHRC guidance, but on single sex spaces, before we get to the gender identity issues, on single sex spaces, more generally, are seeing far too many breaches. I mean, Karin Smyth, the Minister for Secondary Care, is all over this, because even if put to one side the gender identity issues, there are far too many cases of men and women being on the same ward, and it's not appropriate, dignified or safe. So we've got to deal with that. That is often about capacity constraints, resources. So I've got to be honest with people watching, it's going to take time to eliminate that, but the objective is to eliminate it. Then we get onto the gender identity issues. Now I think this is primarily an issue about women's rights, voices and spaces, that's where the real tension and conflict has arisen, and so we've got to make sure that the guidance has real world application. I don't think anyone, for example, would think it desirable for a trans man, so someone who's born female, but to all intents and purposes, you know, hairy arms, beard, voice, identity, then wanders into women's toilets or goes to a women's ward or another women's space. I think that would be undignified and unpleasant for everyone concerned, this is really about women's rights, voices and spaces. That's where I think we've got to try and find a way to make sure that trans women are a space that is dignified and safe and inclusive for them, that doesn't impact on women's sex based rights and spaces…
JR: That sounds like third spaces?
WS: I think, I think for trans women, yes, I think that is where we're looking. And I know there will be lots of people, probably some Mumsnet users, and there'll be lots of people in the LGBT community and allies who would say that that's outrageous, I can't believe you're even saying that, and you're a gay health secretary, how could you countenance this? I'm trying to find a way through on this that maybe not everyone loves, but everyone can live with and treats people with dignity and respect. And I think where this conversation went so badly wrong was a lack of understanding of why, in a women's rights context, the majority of our population who fought for generations for those rights, voices and spaces feel strongly about protecting them. And I think the, you know, I understand obviously, you know, being a gay man the context of LGBT equality and the struggles that our community has been through. But I don't think there's been nearly enough dialogue, empathy and understanding for different perspectives. I think we're getting to a better place as a country now, and if we can do that in a way that's level headed, rational and considerate and compassionate, I think we'll be in a better place and will arrive at common sense.
JR: Okay, thank you so old clock says most of your donors, since you have become an MP have interests in private health care. What do they want from you in exchange for the cash?
WS: Nothing, just a Labour Government. I'd also just reject the premise of the question, actually, because I've seen lots of stuff online about this, none of my donors are involved in providing health care. All of them are kind of registered on the parliamentary record, and the Department of Health and Social Care know who my donors are. So in the extremely unlikely event that there was ever an actual or perceived conflict of interest, then you're a million miles away, you're not able to take those decisions. The other thing I’d want to say is I'm really proud of people who donate to politics, just as I'm proud of people who donate to charity. I think it's right that people, because if we exercise power and decision making, I think it's right that we get the sort of scrutiny that maybe, you know, Save the Children wouldn't, or Barnardos wouldn't, in terms of who's donating to them, because of the risk of conflicts of interest. But ultimately, I think, you know, my donors, Labour's donors, are motivated by values and the progressive change they want to see in this country. The most laughable thing people ever say about me on the internet is this idea that I've got an NHS privatisation agenda; over my dead body would we privatise the NHS. The thing that motivates me most of all in this job is not only that the NHS saved my life, and we've all got our own stories of the difference its made, that radical thing that was done in 1948 in the rubble and ruin of the Second World War to provide health care on the basis of need and not the ability to pay. That is the principle that I'm defending now as our country's Health Secretary.
JR: Okay, so final question: Hi Wes, seems like quite a few in your party have it in for Keir. He doesn't strike me as someone who’d cling on if he lost mass support, if there was a leadership contest, would you throw your hat in the ring? And please don't say you're not going to expect to speculate, etc, etc. You wouldn't be in politics if you weren't ambitious.
WS: Well I never made any apology for being an ambitious person, especially as one of the increasing number, but still minority of MPs from a working class background, I'd say about Keir, though, don't underestimate the guy. He's been consistently underestimated. They said he couldn't win the Labour leadership he did. They said he couldn't change the Labour Party he did, and now they're saying that he’s not going to be able to deliver change in our country. And if you look at what we've done in our first year, I think there's a lot of things that we can be proud of. I’d be the first to say, including on health, there is so much more to do, but in terms of my own future and ambitions, I'm exactly where I want to be, and having now gone through a government reshuffle for the first time, is a completely different kettle of fish to being in Opposition. Let me tell you, because the moment it's underway, you get that buzz on your phone, WhatsApp lights up, there's a reshuffle on, capital letters, all your team start messaging, the journalists are messaging. Are you safe? Are you moving? Are you going here, there? And you just feel this sickness, the pit to your stomach, and the nerves set in. I was terrified of being reshuffled out of the Department of Health and Social Care. I absolutely love this job and what we're doing, but we've only just begun. There is so much more to do, and the best is still to come.
JR: Being reshuffled to being Prime Minister is a completely different kettle of fish…
WS: Completely, completely different, and I'm definitely, definitely avoiding that question.
JR: Very good. All right, final favourite biscuit. Just have to ask. We ask everyone.
WS: Jaffa cakes? Are they cakes or biscuits?
JR: Cakes.
WS: In that case, I do like a chocolate digestive. I've resisted these.
JR: You can take them away.
WS: Yeah, no, when no one's looking, yeah, if it's not jaffa cakes. Oh, those little, you know, it's like little Is it the Viennese ones with a bit of chocolate in the middle and the sort of short, bready stuff either side.
JR: Oh yeah Viennese Whirls?
WS: Yeah, they're not whirls, they're the round ones. There's the little, little fingers. I love those. Far too much information.
JR: First one who’s ever said Viennese fingers…
WS: That's where my working class roots meet middle class aspiration, right there in biscuits.