Health and Social Care Budgets

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I shall be brief, Mr Bailey.

Our NHS is the envy of the world; our social care system, frankly, is not. Much has changed since the war years, and that has not yet been reflected or accepted. The health budget of £120 billion sounds a lot, but it is inadequate. It assumes that demand is falling; it is not, it is rising. Even NHS England has admitted that it is not enough. It is not sustainable—that is what the Public Accounts Committee report has set out. Trusts are still in deficit. Clinical commissioning groups have a very varied outcome, financially. The GP triaging offer is welcome, but it is a drop in a proverbial ocean.

The move to sustainability and transformation plans is absolutely right; the problem is that it is not properly funded and we are considering implementing models of care that are untried, untested and uncosted. That cannot be right. There is no transition funding and, although I welcome the capital funding for the project, £325 million is, I am afraid, not enough, Minister. Social care represents a third of local authority spending. We currently spend £14.4 billion. Unlike with the NHS, it is means-tested. Again, demand is going up but the funding is going down.

The funding to local government is inadequate. The 3% precept is helpful, but those of us in rural areas clearly have to pay more because we pay more council tax overall, compared with input from the state. The £2 billion is very welcome, but as my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), explained, it is a little bit but not enough and we need a proper review. We must also ensure that that money does not get stuck with our local authorities. That has happened before and I would not be happy with its happening again.

On the big picture, we do not really measure the system. We do not look at, or measure, need. We do not look at the people who do not even ask for help. Until we start measuring input, output and outcomes across the whole of health and social care, we will not solve the problem. The Green Paper is extremely welcome, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes that it must cover both health and social care. It would be better than a commission, but it must look at the whole system. It must look at the free/means-tested issue. It must look at integration, joint commissioning and a joint budget and accept some structural changes. We have had Sutherland, Wanless, Dilnot and Barker; the issue really is not that simple.

The Government must face up to the problem, but the public also must play their part. We have to accept change, and that is not easy. We must, as others have said, look at general tax, hypothecated tax, insurance, compulsory saving and much more, but the issue is not about just money, but models of care. While we are at it, Minister, please could we have some fair funding for rural areas? We have a disproportionate number of over-85s and rural sparsity that is not properly dealt with. Please Minister, can we have honest acceptance of the problem and the will to face up to it?

Health and Social Care

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

I say to the hon. Lady that, genuinely, these plans offer us an opportunity to produce a transformative process, but they are being undermined by a number of critical points, and we should address them.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key pieces missing from the STP plans is the bit that enables that double running, so that we can move from the existing system to the new system? There is no money anywhere for any transition and double running.

[Dr Wollaston]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. As she will know, in our area, we are seeing not only the closure of four much-loved community hospitals, but, on top of those 44 beds lost from community hospitals, the local trust wanting to cut 32 acute beds, at a time when its bed occupancy is already running between 92% to 94%. Unless we have that double running and the communities can genuinely see the change, those plans will be seriously undermined. Too often, the NHS plans for hoped-for demand, rather than actual demand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Let us be clear: estimates are a serious business; they must be realistic. Every year, Parliament votes on how much can be spent. If excess is needed, Departments have to go back to the House, so getting estimates right is mission-critical.

The challenge I have with these estimates is that I have little faith that the assumptions they are based on are realistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, there is an assumption that demand will go down. As the population increases, and as immigration increases, that seems a very unrealistic view to take. The Government need to look long and hard at the assumptions they have made, because I for one am not convinced that they have got them right.

We also need to look at what these estimates assume in terms of the negatives. They assume we can keep on course if we reduce public health spending. If we start reducing that spending, which prevents the need for NHS intervention—the most expensive form of intervention—will we really save money? It seems to me that we will not. The other assumption made in these estimates is that central administration will be cut. We should bear in mind the complexity of what is going on at the moment, with 44 STPs coming on board, as we all hope they will, and I agree with my hon. Friend that they are a good concept, although I have some real concerns about delivery. Overall, I am concerned that these estimates are not based on realistic assumptions, and Ministers will need to seriously address that.

As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who leads the Public Accounts Committee, and my hon. Friend have said, the estimates must take into account what we need for health and social care. If we cut spending on social care, or do not adequately fund it, we will increase spending in the NHS.

However, underpinning all of that is the need to have measurements in place across the whole system, as my hon. Friend indicated, so that we know what the full scope of the demand is. We must measure the results achieved by the resource we put in and the outcomes for the population as a whole. We all talk about measures around A&E and the NHS. We all talk about waiting times, and the targets that are set are all around waiting times. However, nobody is looking at what impact that has on primary care—on our GPs—or on social care. If an estimate is to be right, therefore, we need to look at the whole system of measurement.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making powerful points. At my local district general hospital, West Suffolk, winter preparedness plans included a 5% uplift in demand—this is exactly the point she is making—but there was a 20% increase. I have exactly the same thing in social care, where my social care providers tell me people are older and more poorly. We have increased demand across the piece for that reason.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful example. She is absolutely right.

If we look at the whole measurement system—this was acknowledged in one of our Public Accounts Committee sessions by the Department of Health—we see that there is limited measurement, and that there probably should be more. When I challenged the individual concerned on whether the Government would be looking at that, he stood from one foot to the other and could not give us much of an answer. These estimates have to be based on proper measurement of need, on what is operationally put into practice, and on the outcome for patients, but that simply is not the case.

We need to look at the differences between the NHS and social care as regards how the money is allocated. In the NHS, we have some ring-fencing, while in social care we do not, but because the two are inextricably linked, unless we look at the way in which each of those pots is managed, never mind how much is in them, we give rise to problems for the future. Social care is not ring-fenced. I am sure we are all grateful for the additional moneys that have been provided, but frankly they do not go far enough. The first chunk of money might cover the living wage, and the ability of local authorities to increase the precept by 3% is welcome, but as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, that is taxpayers’ money.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern about the 3% precept, as shifting the cost of health and social care away from general taxation on to a property-based tax has obvious problems—not least, that it will disadvantage communities that are less well off?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I have one of those constituencies where communities are not very well off. Many of the facilities that are there to provide social care are failing because we do not have the more affluent individuals who can ensure that some of our care homes, particularly nursing care homes, are alive and well. I am now down to just three for a very large constituency, and that is completely inadequate.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I both have constituencies with a large proportion of elderly people. Indeed, Worthing has the highest proportion of over-85s in the whole country. This is a double whammy, because people who are over 85 tend to require a great deal more healthcare, stay in hospital for longer, and have multiple problems in hospital that cost more—we are looking after them well and need to look after them better—and the social care side when they do come out of hospital, too often delayed, is costly as well. Those are the growing pressures that the estimates appear not to take proper account of.

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He is right that the cost of ageing is not adequately taken into account. The way the Government measure health outcomes is predicated on the number of births and looking at the lifespan of the population. Because people live longer in areas like my constituency in Devon, it is assumed that we therefore have better health outcomes, but that does not allow for the fact that we have a low number of live births. Many people move into our lovely area when they are much older, and so the level of improvement is small. There are some basic, fundamental flaws in the way the Government—not just this Government; it has gone on for years—estimate the need in an area. As my hon. Friend rightly says, one of the biggest challenges is age.

Integration is expected somehow to be the solution to all our problems, but there is no transition funding to allow for double running, and there are, as far as I am aware, not many pooled budgets. As we have heard, these plans make certain assumptions about the recruitment of individuals, but we cannot recruit at the level we need now, never mind what we will need for the future. There is also a lack of training in the specialisms that we are going to need. Specifically in some of our more rural areas—we have talked about the ageing population—we need more specialist generalists. That is agreed by most of the royal colleges, but it is not being put into practice. So many issues will impact on the effectiveness of integration that I doubt that it is really going to be a way forward in reducing costs. I am concerned that the integration model, while very welcome, has not been fully thought through. The barrier to its being successful is that there will be unbudgeted costs. There is no evidence for the assumption that demand will decrease, and so no evidence that integration will deliver savings. It therefore seems to me that these estimates cannot really be sound. Real cost estimates are needed.

We have failed to address the element of social care that is paid for privately. I refer here to the Dilnot report and the Care Act 2014. We are talking about how the Government’s money—the taxpayer’s money—is to be shared out between the two systems, but we should never forget that social care is means-tested as opposed to the NHS, which is free at the point of delivery. If we do not try to ensure that the necessary savings are made by individuals taking responsibility, with or without the Government stepping in, we will find that the demand on the NHS is simply too great for the system to succeed and for these estimates to be valid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman should know that, according to figures for the most recent month available, 90.6% of A&E attendances were seen within the four hours. We are aware that the system remains under pressure, and are putting efforts into identifying steps through the A&E improvement plan, with five specific measures to improve front-door streaming, back-door discharge and patient pathways through hospitals to improve that performance.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

19. Rural areas have high demand for primary and social care that increases the pressure on A&E if it is not met. Given the relationship between primary, secondary, A&E and social care, does the Minister also measure waiting times in primary and social care in the same way? That would give him a fuller picture of the demands on the system that need addressing.

[Mr Dunne]

The short answer is that at present we do not record waiting times in the same way. Tests are being undertaken in relation to waiting times for GPs, but at this point I do not have access to the data.

Healthcare (Devon)

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Devon shares a challenge with many other rural parts of the country. We can safely say that the things we are asking and lobbying for have a general application. From the Minister’s perspective, something that has a more general application will be much more acceptable.

We have an above average number of over-85s with complex co-morbidities, as do many other rural areas, because people like to retire to such places. We know that travel distances in Devon are particularly acute. We have been compared to Denmark in terms of the numbers of roads that we have.

It is absolutely right to raise the recruitment challenge, but it is not a simple question of not being able to get people; there simply are not enough people to get. Previous Governments have inadequately provided for training. In addition, we have the challenge of attracting people to work in a rural location. Rural locations are fine if someone is retiring there; young individuals want to live in cities; and that is the challenge. On top of that, the cost of living also makes a post in a rural area unattractive.

Perhaps the most difficult problem is the one-size-fits-all approach that previous Governments have focused on. The model for funding and for structures is built around an urban model where there are numbers and therefore productivity. The challenge we have is the lack of footfall, except in tourist times. We need to tick the box not only for the funding formula but for the new integrated models of care that look at integrating vertically and horizontally across primary and secondary care. The multi-specialty community provider and primary and acute care systems will simply not work where we are, which means that we cannot use the same solutions as other areas.

Devon is a prime example of all these problems. We have three different reviews going on. We have the success regime in north Devon; the consultation on primary care, which last year took place in south Devon and is now taking place in Northern, Eastern and Western Devon; and the sustainability and transformation plans, which have been relatively recently brought into play. As has already been mentioned, Angela Pedder, the leader of our STP, will look at combining all the reviews.

The real challenge that we face is the speed at which implementation of the changes is being considered. As other hon. Members have said, it makes it almost impossible to put in place the needed care in the community. Of more concern to me is the fact that nowhere have we really addressed the need for a proper strategy for rural healthcare. I have read the five-year plan, and the word “rural” appears three times. I have been frustrated, when I have written to the Minister’s predecessors to ask about a rural strategy, because they have told me that there is one, when the truth is that there is not. There is an urgent need for a proper review of examples from around the world—Australia and New Zealand. There are plenty of examples. Even China has a proper strategy, and other countries think about such things in a very different way. That, to me, is crucial.

The other day I attended a workshop with the Nuffield Trust, the ambulance service and a number of hospital trusts, looking at what is happening and what we need to do. In rural areas things are at crisis point. Care homes are closing and are not being replaced with new ones—at least not in rural areas. They tend to be developed in city areas. The result will be a change in the population mix in rural areas, which will lead to economic deprivation and then social deprivation. We need to accept that rural communities are different. They need to be supported; otherwise, the consequences will not be as simple as whether we lose a hospital. The taxes raised in this country are generated predominantly in the city, but we accept that they should be spent across the country; equally, that is how we should deal with our rural communities.

We should review and amend the funding formula. I am pleased to hear of the changes in allocation which are coming shortly. However, the issue is more fundamental than the funding formula. One of our challenges is the fact that the needs are different in each rural area, but training regimes have become increasingly specialised. There are many individuals who specialise, in a number of different specialisms; the current regime structure requires a certain number of specialists, in each of those specialisms, to get a tick in the box to say that an area is safe. We need more generalists, not more specialists. Several royal colleges are already considering the generalising of training, but we need conversations to happen not just within those royal colleges but between them, and Government should sponsor and support that. We also need to get acceptance within the trusts that recruit the individuals. If they will not accept the new generalists, we shall have a problem.

We need more generalists and we need more geriatricians. We also need to think carefully about how to deliver urgent care. Urgent care and accident and emergency are not entirely the same. Some of the models used in other parts of the world, such as Australia, are very interesting. It is wrong to say that if there cannot be an A & E department the hospital must go. There are many different ways to provide what we need, and we must look at that. We must also review the regulatory criteria. Regulators say, “You need a person with this job description and this expertise and training.” At the moment regulators will not allow an organisation to accept someone with the right skill mix but without the specific tick-the-box qualifications. That needs to change.

As to the care home sector, we clearly need hard measures, but we need soft measures too. The human side of social care is as important as the technical side. A challenge with respect to the agenda for integrating health and social care is to scrutinise the commissioning of social care in the same way as the commissioning of NHS care. At the moment that is not happening. I do not think I am wrong if I say that there is now a bit of a lottery, based on where people live, for how much money is allocated and therefore how good the care is.

My final plea is about the long-term plan. With increasing development and population—whatever happens about immigration—we need to ensure that we plan. At the moment, the NHS is not a statutory consultee in the planning process; and that needs to be rectified.

Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I rise to support new clauses 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and amendments 10 and 13. The only reason new clause 4 does not stand in my name is that it relates to NHS England, which is outwith my purview.

People are well aware of my objections to clauses 3 and 4. Many Members in this House and medical voices outside the House have real concerns about the danger to patients of doctors having to convince only one colleague before trying a completely unproven approach. As well as the danger to patients, I feel that there is a danger to our clinical trials system. Why would someone go through applications, a year of paperwork and phases 1, 2 and 3, when they could just cut to the chase?

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for being willing to sit around a table with the Members who were named by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the Minister, and to start with a blank sheet of paper and work out how we could do something useful. It has been a great procedure. I welcome the fact that later in the day the hon. Member for Daventry will propose the removal of the clauses on innovative practice and litigation.

Turning to the off-patent drugs proposals, 6 November was a very frustrating day in this House. Every single Member who spoke from the Back Benches spoke in favour of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, but the time ran away during the Minister’s response—not the Minister who is here today. That debate showed the appetite across the House to get something done on off-patent drugs.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) has explained most of what I was going to explain. There is still the issue that while specialists are steeped in the evidence and used to using drugs off label, those who are not are less sure. There is no automatic place where they can check a dose or an indication. Sometimes, it is the general practitioner who does not carry it through. We have had lots of discussions in this House about the changes in the NHS and the evolution to multidisciplinary teams out in the community. That means that there are far more non-medical prescribers. The further someone is from the expert prescriber, the less comfortable they are. They do not have easy access to somewhere they can check when they think, “Is that just my bad handwriting or is that really what I mean?” That is what new clause 6 on the BNF could achieve.

The BNF is used by everyone and is on every desk in the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds said, people can either check a drug that they have had a letter about from the hospital or look something up when they think, “I don’t have anything for this. What exists?” We will also discuss that when we come to the database proposals. I welcome the fact that the database has been changed from being a registry of people doing their own thing to a place where information is shared.

On new clause 5, which I tabled, although the inclusion of off-patent drugs in the BNF will achieve the sharing of information and will, in a sense, give them a slightly informal kite mark, I feel that it is important to look eventually at providing a licence. The reason for my concern relates to the drug simvastatin, which is used all over the place to control people’s cholesterol and has been found to be useful in multiple sclerosis—a disease that plagues many people and causes a lot of suffering, and for which, frankly, we do not have a lot to offer. That drug is incredibly cheap, but if a company decides to tweak a little molecule of it, call it something else and put it out as a new wonder-drug for multiple sclerosis, we will be having debates in Westminster Hall about a drug that costs fifty grand and that the NHS cannot afford. Under General Medical Council rules, the cascade is still that a doctor must prescribe a licensed drug over an unlicensed or off-label one, regardless of cost. If a doctor was faced with fifty grand for simvastatin-new versus sixpence for the simvastatin we all know, they would have no choice, and we would be right back in the same position—relentlessly discussing the NHS’s access to drugs.

The drugs we are talking about are already safe. They have had a patent and been used for so long that they are now off patent, which means that they have been around for a decade. We know their side effects, the common dosages and what to look out for. They should not have to start at point zero of the licensing process. We need a short licensing system, so that patient groups, academics, charities and the British Generic Manufacturers Association can say, “We think there is something useful here.” We have put provisions in new clauses 2 and 3 for the NIHR and NICE to have capacity in their systems to provide a funnel for evidence on such drugs.

These drugs are not developed by big pharma, so there are not huge costs that have to be recouped. The purposes of them are usually found by academics and clinicians, so pharmaceutical companies should not make a massive profit out of them. The benefit should be that the NHS can afford them and patients can access them. We have many debates about access to medical treatments in the House, usually in Westminster Hall and usually about drugs that are eye-wateringly expensive. In this case we are talking about drugs that are proven and cheap. We need to come up with a system that makes them accessible to patients.

I commend the Minister for the time, that, as others have said, he has given the four of us around a few tables, hammering these provisions together. I hope that we will be supported in working them through and actually doing some good for the NHS and our patients.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this important Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and the amendments he has tabled. Specifically, I rise to support amendment 13. I am sure that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) will be disappointed that his private Member’s Bill did not make it to Committee stage, but I hope that he is happy to see some of it included in this Bill.

I had my reservations about the Bill as it stood originally, and I have reservations about some of the amendments, but I believe that amendment 13 will increase the use of off-label drugs in a safe and secure way. Those drugs can often be a cheaper and quicker way to tackle a disease, as they do not have to go through the rigmarole of being developed and licensed, which can take many years and many billions of pounds. NICE states that an unlicensed medicine is one that

“does not have a UK marketing authorisation and is not expected to do so in the next 2 years”,

whereas an off-label medicine is one

“with an existing UK marketing authorisation that is…used outside the terms of its marketing authorisation”,

and for which

“it is not expected that the existing UK marketing authorisation will be extended to cover this use in the next 2 years.”

The inclusion of off-label use classes in the database as innovative medical treatments will allow the medical profession to see where off-label use has been effective, even if it is at the other end of the country. However, we must be careful not to place off-label uses on a pedestal and allow people to cling on to false hope. They are the most vulnerable people in our society, often looking for any treatment that may help them, but we must ensure that any drug that is prescribed off label is used responsibly and ethically. I believe that the database will help by allowing doctors to see what is effectively a large sample trial that gives them more information on a particular treatment. I therefore support amendments 13 and 10.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for bringing this important private Member’s Bill before the House and for his work in ensuring that all parties agree with it. It seems that a lot of work has gone into it by Members throughout the House, and as someone who was not part of those discussions, I am grateful to them for doing that work for everybody else.

The NHS benefits from one of the most rigorous health technology assessment organisations in the world, which provides clear and robust evidence of the clinical benefits of new interventions. However, the introduction of innovative treatments is complex, not straightforward, and the difficulty for the life sciences industry in getting new treatments to the market means that UK patients are often the last to see the benefits of new innovations in their disease area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady knows that I would obviously have preferred to retain clauses 3 and 4, but I have to agree with her: the body of opinion stands on her side of the argument, not mine, so the simple answer is yes.

I remind the House, though, that there was a decent and honourable purpose behind clauses 3 and 4. Dr John Hickey, the former head of a primary care trust, contacted me to say that,

“as a registered medical practitioner, a former NHS Trust Chairman and with 30 years’ experience in the field of legal medicine with the Medical Protection Society (last five years as Chief Executive), I believe I am adequately qualified to comment on your Bill.”

He went on to say:

“Over the last 30 years I have seen how doctors have increasingly practised defensive medicine…because of the fear of litigation and disciplinary action by their regulators; this defensiveness is not in patients’ best interests.”

In fact, it may interest Members to hear that, in reading the debates on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the recent debate on the Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill, I have seen much stated that supports the action I wanted to take in clauses 3 and 4 to reassure doctors who fear litigation. For example, the British Medical Association’s parliamentary brief for the Second Reading of the Off-patent Drugs Bill stated that there were

“two barriers to the use of off-patent drugs in a new indication: 1) Clinicians’ confidence in prescribing: clinicians take on a personal and professional liability if they prescribe an off-patent drug in a new indication”,

and therefore they require reassurance. The brief goes on:

“GMC guidance also indicated a greater level of responsibility for the doctor prescribing off-label and therefore potential greater risk of liability which would be a disincentive for a doctor prescribing off-label drugs”.

That is a simple statement of the purpose of clauses 3 and 4: to give doctors a supplementary way to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing where they might want to do something they believe to be in their patients’ best interests, in a fully evidenced, responsible and honest way.

Similarly, the Multiple Sclerosis Society’s brief on the same subject states:

“Guidance from the General Medical Council is clear that a doctor takes on an extra level of personal liability when prescribing off-label, which would be a significant disincentive to prescribing”.

Breast Cancer Now says that, because of personal liability,

“doctors can be unwilling to prescribe drugs for new purposes, even where…clinical evidence is strong”.

As Lord Freyberg stated in the mesothelioma debate in the other place,

“The fastest way to save lives is to see if the drugs for common cancers work on the rarer ones as well, given the shared mechanism of disease across cancer. This is off-label research and until we fix the issue of liability, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, we will continue to send thousands, like my sister, to an early grave.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 407.]

There was therefore plenty of reason and evidence to support clauses 3 and 4, but I guess politics is all about being pragmatic, and I believe that the provisions that we have already discussed are worthy in themselves of inclusion in a sensible Bill, because they will do some positive things. It is therefore with some reluctance, as I am sure the House will understand, that I have decided to table these amendments, which strike the elements relating to clinical negligence from my Bill.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I support my hon. Friend’s amendment 2, which would remove clause 3—the responsible innovation clause—from the Bill. I know that his heart was absolutely in the right place when he first put the Bill before the House; however, I am glad he has tabled the amendment, as I am sure the majority of us, if not all of us, are present in the Chamber to ensure that the rest of his Bill, particularly the provisions dealing with the database, gets through.

I have received briefings from all manner of medical bodies, as I am sure all colleagues have, stating that the Bill would do more harm than good for patients. A letter signed by nine different medical bodies, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association and the Patients Association, says that

“this Bill will actually harm good innovation by weakening patient protection, adding unnecessary bureaucracy and undermining good scientific practice.”

By removing clause 3, amendment 2, along with amendment 3, will allay those fears. There will no longer be any fears about doctors using quackery, as some people outside the Chamber have put it. Instead, there will merely be a database, set up by the Secretary of State, who may by regulation confer functions on the Health and Social Care Information Centre, although I note that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has tabled amendments seeking to change who the Secretary of State has to consult before making any regulations.

At a constituency level, a number of concerns have been raised with me by those in the healthcare sector who believe this Bill, or at least this clause, would do more damage than good. There was a misconception among some people that it remained a carbon copy of Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament. Although my hon. Friend’s Bill is indeed similar to Lord Saatchi’s, the amendments he has tabled will completely dispose of any similarity at all. Innovation sounds like such a good idea. To most people in the street, it sounds like a marvellous thing and therefore taking “innovation” out of the Bill must be a bad move. However, innovation must be achieved through the correct means and must not pose any danger to patients.

The argument goes that innovation has decreased in recent years owing to the legal complexities and doctors’ fears of negligence claims against them if something goes wrong. There is no evidence of that, according to the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union, the General Medical Council and various other medical—

Debate interrupted.

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

Debate resumed—

[Anne Marie Morris]

I shall resume my comments on amendment 2, which would remove clause 3. The argument goes that innovation has fallen in recent years owing to the legal complexities and doctors fearing a negligence claim against them if something goes wrong. There is no evidence of this, according to the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union, the General Medical Council or various other medical bodies that have spoken out on the issue. They claim that the Bill needs to be completely rethought and that no amount of amendment would make it acceptable. I would like to think that the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has done will go some way to meet the concerns expressed before Committee stage.

Those most likely to benefit from innovative medicine are likely to be those most in desperation. Those who have nowhere else to turn will often be allured by the carrot on the end of the proverbial stick, but we must make sure that the treatment is right for that particular person. The UK has a proud history of research through universities, research institutes, the private sector and, of course, the NHS. According to the UK Clinical Trials Gateway, there are currently 3,754 trials recruiting, and that does not include the innovation that goes on day to day in the NHS.

According to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, it can take over 12 years to develop a new medicine to the standards of quality, efficacy and safety that are laid down in legislation. It will typically cost £1.15 billion to do all the research and development necessary before a new medicine can be licensed for use. For every successful medicine, 25,000 compounds are tested, 25 of these in clinical trials, with five receiving approval for marketing. The pharmaceutical industry invests more in research and development than any other industry—£11.2 million is spent every day—and employs around 23,000 people in R and D. My hon. Friend the Minister for Life Sciences stated in September last year:

“Research and innovation in the NHS are critical for addressing ...challenges.”

I agree and therefore wholeheartedly support amendment 2.

Amendment 3, which would remove clause 4, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, with the support of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is important to address the legal aspects of the Bill and medical negligence. The common law test, which is the main test for medical negligence, has been around since 1957 and derives from the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. The Bolam test states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent. This rule has served us well over the past 55 years and I believe it will continue to serve us well. However, if it needs to be amended, our judges are in a suitable position to do that. The 1997 case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, where the courts refined the Bolam test, is a great example of our common law in action.

Although I am sure some will point out that the Bill does not explicitly change the Bolam test and clause 4(3) appears to address the concerns that were expressed about the Saatchi Bill, I worry that lawyers would still find a way around this. Why tempt fate to change something that is not broken? Judges and lawyers know where they stand with the common law, so maintaining the status quo will give both doctors and patients the protection they need from negligent treatment. If the removal of clause 3 is agreed to, it is right that clause 4 should also be removed as it would no longer be necessary, and the common law of negligence and the Bolam test can continue to operate effectively, as they have done for 55 years. I therefore support amendment 3.

[Heidi Alexander]

This group of amendments, and in particular those which leave out clauses 3 and 4, are very welcome and have my full support. I appreciate that making such extensive changes to a Bill at this stage is not easy, but the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has been true to his word, and has rightly decided not to proceed with these clauses in the face of strong opposition.

Members who were present on Second Reading will have heard some of the grave concerns expressed by medical royal colleges, research charities and patient groups. I think it would be fair to the hon. Gentleman if I say that those concerns, which I shared, were more about the unintended consequences of clauses 3 and 4, than about the stated aim of his Bill. However, the effect of these amendments, if they are passed, is that the sole purpose of this Bill is now to give the Secretary of State the power to establish a database. The hon. Gentleman knows that on Second Reading, along with many other hon. Members, I said that I believed the Secretary of State already had this power.

The Association of Medical Research Charities has said that primary legislation is not required to set up a database of innovative medical treatments. According to the House of Commons Library, section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 gives the Secretary of State power to direct the Health and Social Care Information Centre to establish a system for the collection or analysis of information. Indeed, in Committee, the Minister signalled his intention to introduce such a database, regardless of whether this Bill becomes law. He said at that time:

“If the Bill does not, for whatever reason, reach the statute book, I would happily proceed towards establishing such a database”.––[Official Report, Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2015; c. 22.]

With that in mind, I have to question whether what is left of this Bill is needed at all.

There also seems to be some confusion, even in the Minister’s own mind, about the purpose of the Bill. The Daily Telegraph claimed on 22 January that the Minister had told it that changes in the reworked Bill could help to cut the length of time it took to bring a new drug to market by a third, from 15 years to 10 years. Yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) received a written answer to a question on this very subject on 28 January, the Minister’s reply was:

“The Bill is not specifically designed to reduce the length of time it takes to bring a new drug to market”.

I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the apparent contradiction in those remarks. Having said all that, I support all the amendments in this group. Indeed, they represent a positive step forward in terms of the overall Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

Setting aside the fact that I question whether what is left of the Bill is necessary, if the database is to be created, it is important that we get its design right. The Association of Medical Research Charities has expressed concern that the database might adversely impact patients and medical research. For such a database to be effective, it will need to be appropriately regulated and quality controlled. I believe that it can command the confidence of the medical profession only if it is developed in consultation with it. With that in mind, amendments 8 and 9 deal with the bodies that the Secretary of State must consult and get approval from before introducing regulations establishing a database of innovative treatments.

As the Bill stands—this is set out in clause 2(1)—to make those regulations the Secretary of State need only consult the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Restricting the statutory consultees to only one organisation seems highly restrictive and is inconsistent with the Bill’s explanatory notes, which state:

“The detailed design of the database would be consulted upon with professional bodies and organisations.”

Amendments 8 and 9 would make the legislation clearer on which bodies should be consulted.

I note that the Minister was unable to support similar amendments tabled in Committee because he felt that the list was “not exhaustive”. Indeed, he went on to say:

“Although it represents a helpful list of consultees, such a provision would need to include many more organisations. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, restricting the process would not be helpful”.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) then said:

“I know from my consultation on the Bill with stakeholders that we would need longer lists than those in the amendments.”––[Official Report, Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2015; c. 22-23.]

With those constructive comments in mind, I have included in the list a provision allowing the Secretary of State to consult

“any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

I know that there were concerns that the list of specified organisations could become out of date. However, given that these regulation-making powers would likely be used only once—to create the database—I do not believe that concern is wholly justified. Indeed, if the Minister, or any hon. Member, believes that an inappropriate organisation is on the list set out in my amendments, I would be keen to know which organisation they feel should not have a say in the creation of the database.

I hope that these important amendments will address the concerns raised in Committee and that hon. Members will now be able to support them, because they will ensure that we get the design of the database right.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I will speak first to amendments 8 and 9 and then turn my attention to amendment 15. As the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) explained, amendments 8 and 9 would add a whole host of bodies—I think that I counted eight—that the Secretary of State must consult before making regulations under subsection (1). This relates to the conferring of functions on the Health and Social Care Information Centre in connection with the establishment, maintenance and operation of a database. The hon. Lady has talked articulately about why the two amendments should be made, but I have some concerns.

My main concern, despite everything the hon. Lady said, is that adding all these organisations that the Secretary of State must consult will just add to the complication of the database. The amendments not only ask the Secretary of State to consult, but ask that all these organisations approve the regulations. Adding these extra organisations will just add to the confusion about who is policing the system. Is the consent of all those organisations needed before a treatment can be removed, or can it be removed just by the Health and Social Care Information Centre? If a complaint is made about what is on the database, does it go to the Secretary of State, the NHS or the Health and Social Care Information Centre, or does it have to be put in front of all those organisations again?

I understand that the hon. Lady might not have all the answers to my questions and that these issues go deeper than just her amendments, but I do not think that adding extra layers of consultation will help to simplify the Bill or make it any easier to implement the database, which, if put together correctly, could do much good and help many people across the country and, potentially, the world. I do not support amendments 8 and 9, because I believe that they will add unnecessary complications to the database and impede the good work that it could well achieve.

Amendment 15 has been tabled by the Minister, who has spoken eloquently throughout these debates. Including references to treatments carried out for the purposes of medical research will enhance the database, because it will allow the inclusion of clinical trials and other forms of medical research. Including medical research in the Bill will hopefully help to address the UK DUETS database. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that that is not a database of UK singers who perform together; it is the database of uncertainties about the effects of treatment. It publishes treatment uncertainties from a wide range of people, including patients, clinicians and research recommendations, among others. By including medical research on the database, hopefully we can remove a few more treatment uncertainties from the database or, on the flip side, identify treatment uncertainties with greater ease and therefore tackle them head-on.

Clinical trials are vital if we are to put our NHS resources into the right treatments. They can help find out how to prevent illnesses, detect and diagnose illnesses or treat illnesses. The earlier we can do that, the more lives we can save, so I support any move to increase clinical trials, which I believe this amendment will do. It is my belief—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that his amendment will also increase knowledge of clinical trials among clinicians by adding them to the database. Sir Francis Bacon said that “knowledge is power”, and I do not believe that is any less true when it comes to medicine and saving lives. I fully support the Minister’s amendment.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on introducing this Bill. Let us hope that it has a successful outcome later. I should remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am the Government’s pharmacy champion and vice-chairman of the all-party pharmacy group. Consequently, the majority of my comments will be based very much on pharmacists as dispensers of medicines that will include off-label ones.

I enter into the debate with some trepidation having listened to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who was incredibly well-informed and very persuasive. I hope that my comments will be practical and constructive. I want to concentrate on the data-sharing of summary care records, as well as information to do with these medicines, and the decriminalisation of pharmacists for dispensing errors. I hope that the Minister can clarify his position on some of this stuff when he winds up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I completely concur. I can foresee great benefits for those in the outer reaches of the NHS who do not necessarily come across information about many of the trials that are taking place. One of the biggest criticisms of the original formulation of my Bill was the fear in connection with getting people on to clinical trials. I would like to think that we have not just overcome that issue, with the amendments we are discussing and the latest version of the Bill, but have gone some way along the line to help improve the ability of registered medical practitioners to have knowledge of such trials. I completely concur with the hon. Lady’s point. We have innovation everywhere, so there is a real purpose behind having a database, regardless of whether the Minister has had the ability to set one up before now.

On research, Lord Winston made a very important point particularly well in the other place on Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill. He stated:

“There is no question that in the field of treatment there is a great deal of research.”

He had a list of a number of chemotherapeutic agents that were being looked at, saying:

“In recent years I can count at least 10 or 11”.

He then went on to name them. They are impossible for me to pronounce, so I will not do so here today. He said that,

“there are various combinations of those therapies with other well-known mitotoxic agents. These have included trials”.

He went on to say:

“Other treatments have been researched: of course there is surgery…and there are now attempts to try to reduce the tumour inside the lung membranes.”

He spoke about three trials that Cancer Research UK is conducting to emphasise the wide range of “stuff”, as he put it, that is going on.

“One is some work with HSV1716, which is a virus that acts against dividing cancer cells. It comes from the herpes virus…a very good example of where we might make a breakthrough in treatment. Then there is a different strand of research with ADI-PEG 20, which in combination with other drugs such as cisplatin affects a particular amino acid in the chain of cell division”—

which could prevent cancer cells from multiplying.

“That has been specifically targeted for the treatment of mesothelioma. A compound, GSK3052230, developed by GSK, is I think about to enter phase 3 trials very shortly. That attacks the FGFR1 gene, and therefore stops cancer cells growing.”

This is where he makes the point exactly:

“There is now an increasing emphasis on understanding that, if we are going to improve outcomes for patients with a variety of different cancers, and other chronic long-term conditions, we need to move away from a generalised approach to managing disease towards personalised, precision medicine”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 395-7.]

Medicine is going to change. Research is going to change. Spreading the information about that across our NHS, and how quickly we can do that and learn from success and failure in our NHS, is a very, very important matter.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Does my hon. Friend believe that personalised medicine should become a reality over the next little while and not a research project, and that unless we have freedoms within the database we will never have the knowledge to find out that we can truly have personalised medicine?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I truly believe that personalised medicine will become a reality. I would like to think that a database would aid the spread of knowledge about how individual medicines are being used and who they might affect in different ways, so yes, I nearly completely agree with my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris]

I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on bringing forward the Bill. I am sure I will not be the first to tell him what a feat it is to get a Bill through this House, with all its complexities, to Third Reading. Clauses 1 and 2 will give many people throughout the country hope that there is a cure for many well-known and not so well-known diseases. The database will make it much easier for clinicians up and down the country to find them and provide a better quality of life for many people.

I commend my hon. Friend for the time he has put into the Bill, and the effort he has made to obtain cross-party support on a number of issues. His work with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to include some of the provisions of his Off-patent Drugs Bill is to be commended. Although I did not support all the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, I do believe, as I stated on Report, that amendments 10 and 13 will help many people to live healthier and happier lives for years to come. I therefore congratulate him on his contribution to this Bill.

Some great medicines have been developed through the use of off-label treatment, and I believe that they will continue to be developed, even without the new clauses that the hon. Gentleman tabled. I do not profess to be an expert in the field of off-label treatment, but I know that drugs such as infliximab, adalimumab and methotrexate are now regularly used in the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, having previously been used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and cancer. The use of those treatments has come on leaps and bounds over the past 10 years, and that in an environment where, it is claimed, doctors are scared to innovate. As I have stated, I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, but I do know that many doctors communicate not just countrywide, but across the boundaries of diseases, and learn from each other. The database that the Bill establishes will allow that to be achieved with much greater ease.

A member of my office staff has been fortunate enough to benefit from the drugs that I have just mentioned. Indeed, he informs me that he was one of the first people, if not the first person, to be given the drug adalimumab to treat Crohn’s disease. He was prescribed it in Southampton back in 2007, when it was not licensed for use in children. Had the doctors not taken innovative steps to prescribe a medicine that had not yet been licensed, he would not have had such a fulfilling life—something that many of us take for granted. That is just one example, and I am sure that Members across the House have many more examples of doctors using innovative medicines to help out constituents and loved ones with all manner of diseases. I am therefore delighted to support the Bill on Third Reading and the great work my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has done to get us here.

NHS and Social Care Commission

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Simon Stevens has made the point that if we cut social care, the £30 billion gap widens. There is no escaping from that. The brutal truth is that the whole system is under very substantial pressure. Analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is independent of Government, shows that between now and 2020, we are planning to spend a reducing percentage of our GDP on health. At a time when demand is increasing so dramatically, does that decision make any sense at all? Back in 2013, the OECD did an analysis of all OECD countries in the European Union. Only five were spending a lower proportion of their GDP on health than we do. The NHS is very good value for money, but it is under extraordinary pressure.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The picture that he is painting is one of a very reactive approach to the growing problems. I entirely support his call for this review. As a responsible society, we need to have a holistic, forward-looking, proactive approach, particularly with regard to social care. The Barker commission made a number of good proposals, some of which I agreed with and some I did not. To what extent does he agree with me on that point?

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. In fact, I think that I have agreed with every intervention so far. We will probably all just agree with each other. She is absolutely right and it goes to my point about crisis management. We are at risk of lurching from crisis to crisis, as we prop up a system that is under unsustainable pressure. Of course we always end up spending money at the repair end of the spectrum, rather than on preventing ill health.

There are some great initiatives in the west country, where volunteers, working with GPs, try to address the problems of loneliness, and that is helping to keep people out of hospital. That sort of thinking needs to be much more widespread.

Care Homes: England

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an incredibly important point, and I know well from conversations that we have had both in the Chamber and outside it how much she advocates for her constituents who are in care homes. The fact is that the so-called bed-blocking problem is often caused not by a lack of beds, but by a lack of capacity out in communities, for various reasons. One of those involves communities and the care home sector itself. The fact that people are ending up in hospitals is indicative of the much broader problem of caring for people where they need to be cared for most, which is in their homes and communities. My hon. Friend makes that point very well.

The significant cuts to local council funding have led to a 17% reduction in real terms for local authority spending. Industry research cited by ResPublica points to a shortfall between the cost and provision of the average weekly fee paid by local authorities, which worked out as £42 per resident per week in the period between October 2014 to September 2015.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, I have been a great champion of care homes and the need to meet the challenges over many years. Does he at least, despite being absolutely right to raise these problems, feel some comfort from the 2% precept? I understand that many of the county councils are going to take up that precept, which has been introduced to alleviate some of the challenges that he alludes to.

[Peter Kyle]

I am very grateful for that intervention. I will come to the precept in a moment, when I would welcome further interventions as we talk about the detail of the precept and how it actually, while being welcome on a surface level, will be rolled out in different ways and impact on communities differently. I will keep my eyes open, as the hon. Lady might well want to come back to this when we tackle those issues.

The pressures on care providers will only be exacerbated by the increases in the minimum wage that will come in from this April. However, let me restate my position on the rising minimum wage for the avoidance of any doubt: I believe that those working in the caring professions deserve a pay rise for the fantastic jobs that they do, especially considering that it has sadly become a low-pay sector. I am glad that there is now cross-party consensus on the ambitious rise that is deserved by all those on low pay. However, we must make this work, and it will only work if we are aware of and prepare for what will happen in the areas that this will impact on hardest.

The National Care Association, for example, has estimated that the rise will add at least 5% to payrolls this year and a further 7% year on year by 2020. Without extra resources, local authorities will end up pushing independent, statutorily funded care homes closer to the brink. The excellent ResPublica report from November laid bare the startling and shocking fact that an unfunded living wage could end up with the loss of 37,000 care home places. I know that the Minister and his colleagues will point to two actions that they think will mitigate that, so let me address both of those in turn.

First, there is the social care precept. Introduced in the autumn statement, it gives local authorities the power to raise council tax by an additional 2%, the proceeds of which are ring-fenced for social care. Although all additional funds are welcome, that is a drop in the ocean compared with the additional resources needed. Following the autumn statement, the King’s Fund estimated that the funding gap for social care could be as high as £3.5 billion by the end of this Parliament.

What is more, the precept may well end up generating extra revenue where it is least needed. At present, residential care home funding is split between people who pay for their care themselves and those who have it paid for by their local authority. Self-funders pay 50% more than those funded by councils so, in effect, they subsidise those paid for by the public purse. It is not hard to work out that the homes with a smaller number of self-funders are the ones who are most at risk financially from the cut in funding rates from local authorities. The split varies across the country, but on the estimated figures put together by LaingBuisson in its “Care of Older People UK Market Report”, the number of self-funders in 2014 was only 18% in the north-east, with the majority of other regions hovering around the 40% mark. It is pretty obvious that the power to raise council tax will generate the most revenue in the areas with a higher council tax base, namely the southern regions of England, which—you guessed it—have a higher number of self-funders.

[Peter Kyle]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. In representing Redcar, she knows better than anyone that people in residential care homes that are heavily reliant on statutory funding will be hit the most because of the cuts that are going into local authorities, and they will be hit again by the precept, which, because of the process that I have just outlined, will be front-loading resources into the areas that need it least. Her area of the country will have people who are more dependent on statutory funding for care home places. The 2% is based on a lower percentage of people paying council tax in the first place and will have to cover more people. That is why the precept is not fair and will not get to the people who need it most.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous with his time. He raised a point about inequality. Does he agree that we should be asking the Care Quality Commission to look at how much funding is being supplied in each county to each home? At the moment, it seems that it is a bit of a lottery, for all sorts of reasons, which may or may not be part of his argument. At the very least, we should agree the standard of care and it should be equal across the country.

[Peter Kyle]

I will always be generous with my time for the hon. Lady because, early in this debate, we have found common ground. Later in my speech, I will call for assessment of exactly those areas. We need to understand how the funding changes and the new mechanisms are impacting on the ground and geographically across the country. We must make sure that any revenues generated, particularly in these times of restraint, are going to the parts of the country that need it most. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) made the point well from the Opposition Benches. In this case, the support promised by the Government will simply not end up where it is needed most.

Secondly, on the better care fund, Ministers have belatedly recognised some of the flaws in simply relying on a precept to generate the extra funds needed for social care. There is simply not enough revenue being generated in poorer areas. The Government have said they will take that into account and use a formula for allocating extra funds for these areas taken from the better care fund. That was announced less than a month ago and we wait to see exactly how the details will operate in practice. There are murky areas and a lot of detail is coming. We must make sure we know exactly how this will impact providers in the front line.

Care England, a leading representative body for the independent care services, has already voiced its concern. It doubts whether the funding will get to the care homes that need it most. It is more likely that it will be used on other unfunded projects across the social care budget. It is worth remembering that the initial funding for the better care fund was not new money; it was funding to assist health services which was re-allocated to local authorities. I want to give the Minister the opportunity today to confirm whether the £1.5 billion is new money, or is again taken from existing health service budgets.

Local authorities will not see any of this money, whether new or recycled, until 2017-18 and even then it will be only £105 million. It could be too little, too late to prevent parts of our care home sector catering for the most vulnerable people in our society collapsing or withdrawing from the market and focusing on self-funding residents. Initial better care fund plans have been signed off by local authorities and NHS England. It would be great if an evaluation was conducted into how the funding to date has helped to support residential care homes, if at all.

I think the Minister can now see that there is cross-party support for this kind of independent evaluation into how funding mechanisms are impacting on front-line care provision. It could act as a best practice guide for authorities going forward, even when the extra resources the Government referred to become available. Will the Minister commit to this evaluation covering the impact of funding on the sector? Both Government and Opposition Members would find that helpful.

The majority of media coverage of the sector has been about the state of big providers, such as Four Seasons Health Care and HC-One, and speculation about their future viability. It is important to realise that the 10 largest providers account for about only 25% of the market, the rest being much smaller, independent providers. In my constituency there is a small family home, Wilbury rest home. Last year I sat down with the owner, Graham Dean, shortly after the Chancellor’s announcement on the living wage. Graham is the second generation of his family to run the home and, remarkably, he was born in it. Listening to him and other local independent care home managers talking with kindness, compassion and outright professionalism about the people they care for day in and day out has left a deep impression on me. They provide the kind of loving, caring environment that every human being deserves into their old age.

There are countless homes like that dotted around the country, but they are being pushed to the limit. Indeed, a survey from the National Care Association shows that almost a quarter of providers could exit the market altogether. That would be a tragedy for residents and society, and a crisis for the Government.

Another issue that is putting pressure on the sector is the national shortage of nurses, which has resulted in the increased use of agency nurses. In some cases that costs double the amount for permanent staff. To the Government’s credit, they have recognised that there is an issue and have been working with the care sector and with the Government’s skills body to develop a new training scheme to create a career ladder into caring professions. Sadly, that project was axed last December, just weeks before it was due to be launched. I understand from written answers that I have received that that was not a decision taken by the Department of Health. As a member of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, I am happy to take up this cause with the relevant Ministers in that Department if the Minister feels that would be helpful. I would like to aid his work and I hope that his officials have already been doing much work behind the scenes to fight for its reinstatement.

As I move to my closing remarks, I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister that the Government have a plan—dare I say it, a plan B—that is ready to be implemented should the worst-case scenario predicted by ResPublica and other respected think-tanks in the health sector come to pass. Do the Government have in place a robust contingency plan should the statutorily funded care home sector collapse, resulting in the nightmare scenario of 37,000 older people becoming homeless?

When Southern Cross Healthcare went bust in 2011, there were just enough resources from other providers in the sector to take over. Due to the current state of the industry, no private provider has the capacity to respond to a shortfall of 37,000 beds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

That is an important point. It is up to each hospital to implement digitalisation in its own way, but we are putting in place a series of steps to make sure that all parts of the NHS are supported and encouraged in the drive for delivery of a paperless NHS by 2020. In the new year, we are requiring the clinical commissioning group digital index, which will measure the digitalisation of all health economies, and we are launching a review of best practice. We are absolutely committed to driving digitalisation so that the 21st-century NHS is not running on paper and cardboard.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

10. What plans he has to publish a rural healthcare strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

The “Five Year Forward View” published by NHS England sets out the healthcare strategy for the whole of England, including rural areas. Rural areas have their own health needs, which should be taken into account in planning and developing healthcare systems.

[Anne Marie Morris]

What specific research has the Minister undertaken in order to understand, and what steps has he taken to address, the very different needs and costs of rural communities in the south-west, which has disproportionately high numbers of over 85-year-olds and population distributions that make inflexible multi-speciality community providers and primary and acute care configurations unattainable?

[Ben Gummer]

The “Five Year Forward View”, written by Simon Stevens, takes particular account of rural areas, but of course not all rural areas are the same. It is down to clinical commissioning groups to judge the needs of their local areas and make sure that they are reflecting the specific circumstances in which they find themselves.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Anne Marie Morris Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on bringing her private Member’s Bill before the House for its Second Reading. I also congratulate her on her election in May, which ensured that a seat that has long been Conservative remained blue.

I am pleased that the Bill is to receive its Second Reading today. It aims to allow Great Ormond Street hospital to continue to benefit from J. M. Barrie’s generous and noble gesture. It would allow all royalties derived from public performances, commercial publications or communication to the public of “Peter Pan” to be donated to Great Ormond Street hospital. It is not known precisely how much those royalties have raised over time, because apparently a condition in Mr Barrie’s will stated that he wanted the amount raised to remain unknown. The charity itself states that

“it’s enormously valuable—not only in financial terms, but as a symbol and as an icon—and has brought a fair amount of income to the hospital.”

To give some context to the value of the royalties, I draw attention to the fact that Disney donated more than £10 million to the hospital in just seven years, between 2008 and now. That money does not come directly from royalties and reaffirms the value of Barrie’s connection to the hospital.

The Bill makes provision in relation to two main subjects. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has explained, it would remove the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees for NHS bodies in England. That would make good a commitment made by the Government in 2014. It would therefore allow for greater independence of NHS charities, which has been a concern for a number of generally larger NHS charities, which therefore support this reform. The Charity Commission, for example, said that dual regulation under both NHS and charity legislation made it difficult for NHS charities to achieve and demonstrate independence. Those concerns will be made better if we remove the Secretary of State’s power to appoint trustees on behalf of NHS trusts and foundations. I know the Department of Health is in favour of that.

Secondly, the Bill amends the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998, notably sections 301 and 304 and schedule 6. Clause 3(3) changes the relevant words from

“on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London”

to

“GOSH Children’s Charity for the benefit of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children”.

The Bill permits the accumulation of all royalty rights to the trustees for the benefit of Great Ormond Street Hospital, London. It will allow the transfer of royalty rights to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity of any performance or publication of the play “Peter Pan” in the UK. In doing so, Great Ormond Street hospital is free to move, in full, to become an independent charity under the regulation of the Charity Commission without the risk of losing its protection under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. This, as my hon. Friend made very clear, removes the dual legislation that may be perceived by some to be rather burdensome. Direct transfer of royalties will promote efficiency and, as she correctly says, reduce red tape and drive down costs, which all good Conservative Governments endeavour to achieve.

This Bill is not the first step that the Government have made towards reviewing the regulation and governance of NHS charities. In 2011, the Department of Health conducted a review of NHS charities and consulted on proposals to change the policy on their regulation and governance. In the response, charities welcomed the opportunity to seek greater independence by removing dual regulation requirements. It was clear from their responses that the current regulatory system was of considerable concern. The trustees of the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals Charitable Funds gave the following favourable response:

“The Trustees are not likely to want to move in this direction proposed by the consultation paper in the near future, but have no objection to the Department making the transfer to an independent charity possible, providing there is no compulsion to do this.”

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was also in favour, provided that the Department of Health ensured that the appropriate safeguards are in place. It said:

“The Trust has no objection in principle to NHS charitable trusts being transferred to a nominated charity outside of NHS Legislation subject to appropriate safeguards being in place to ensure that the interests of NHS patients and the relationship with the individual NHS provider bodies are preserved.”

Similarly, UCL Hospitals Charitable Foundation said:

“Yes, as this would allow the charity to be established under an incorporated model and remove the current unlimited liability for individual trustees and the freedom to appoint trustees without the constraints of the current set up.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me very gently say to the hon. Lady that I understand the natural temptation to look in the direction of a sizeable coterie of colleagues, but she is addressing her speech to the House as a whole and through the Chair.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I am appropriately reprimanded, Mr Speaker. I shall ensure that, in particular, I give you the focus and attention you clearly deserve, and indeed Members on the Opposition Benches.

I will continue with the history behind this valuable Bill. The Bill addresses concerns about the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees of NHS foundations and trusts. In 2012, Barts and The London Charity and the Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals Charity said that it was

“unclear as to why the Department seems at pains to preserve the Secretary of State’s…ultimate control over the appointment and removal of trustees”.

They added:

“We broadly agree with the stated aims of the review and would welcome the outcomes listed in”

the report,

“particularly those that would result in NHS charities being able to deliver improved services to NHS patients as their beneficiaries.”

In “Review of the regulation and governance of NHS charities”, the Government’s response to the consultation, the Secretary of State said that he was

“willing to seek to remove those specific legislative provisions as soon as possible.”

The Bill allows him to fulfil that promise.

The Bill refers not only to past consultation, but to past legislation. Following the expiry of the copyright on “Peter Pan” in 1987—50 years after the death of J. M. Barrie—it was concluded that Great Ormond Street hospital should continue to benefit from Mr Barrie’s gesture, and legislation was enacted to do so under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Sections 301, 304 and schedule 6 briefly became redundant, due to a European Union directive on copyright, which meant that copyright law was

“harmonised at 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public”.

The directive was implemented on 1 July 1995, giving Great Ormond Street hospital extra copyright until 2007. The 1988 Act then came into force and that unique Act remains in place to this day.

The Bill builds on this House’s commitment to Great Ormond Street hospital to benefit from the royalties from “Peter Pan”—as laid out in the 1988 Act—by effecting a change in the identity of the person on whom the right is conferred. That is because, under charity law, the trustees have converted from being special trustees appointed by the Secretary of State to being an independent charity.

There is much more to the relationship between Barrie and Great Ormond Street hospital than a benevolent gesture. Barrie’s brother was the inspiration for the play after his tragic death just before his 14th birthday. His mother was said to take comfort from the fact that her son would remain a child forever, and thus the seed was planted for “Peter Pan”.

“Peter Pan” is the story of how a young family travel to a magical land—Neverland—with the help of a little bit of fairy dust. They learn that family is a very important concept, and I have no doubt that many of the visitors to Great Ormond Street hospital and many hon. Members can relate to that. They encounter numerous perils in the shape of a hook-handed pirate, a crocodile that has swallowed an alarm clock and a jealous fairy named Tinker Bell. The story concludes with Peter Pan, the boy who did not want to grow up—I know many other boys who do not want to grow up, many of them quite old—being unable to connect with his friends as they grow older and he remains a child.

Great Ormond Street hospital works to make sure that children do get that opportunity to grow up, but without losing the comfort and experiences of being a child and enjoying their young lives. Sadly, some visitors to Great Ormond Street do not grow up, much like Barrie’s younger brother David, and the connection to Peter Pan is therefore strong ever more.

Since its completion in 1904, “Peter Pan” has formed the basis of nine films, including a spin-off series on Tinker Bell, one radio adaptation and nine TV shows since 1955, the first of which was a stage adaption aired on NBC. Seven video games contain characters from the “Peter Pan” universe. Not only that, but “Peter Pan” has continued to be reproduced in countless plays, books and comics. According to the Great Ormond Street website, between now and next March, 23 runs of “Peter Pan” will be performed across the country—north, south, east and west—including in the northern powerhouse, which is a testament to the fantastic work and its legacy.

Barrie was a great supporter of the work Great Ormond Street hospital did then; it continues to do such work to this day. In 1929, he was approached to sit on a committee to buy some land so that the hospital could build a much needed new wing. Barrie declined to serve on the committee, but said that he hoped to find another way to help. Two months later, the hospital board was stunned to learn that Barrie had handed over all his rights to “Peter Pan”. At a Guildhall dinner later that year, Barrie, as host, claimed that Peter Pan had been a patient in Great Ormond Street hospital and

“it was he who put me up to the little thing I did for the hospital.”

It therefore seems fitting that such a gesture was made to the hospital to continue its great work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity raises money to enable the hospital to provide world-class care and to pioneer treatments and cures for childhood illnesses, with an estimated 255,000 patients coming through its doors every year. The hospital originally had just 10 beds and two doctors.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making a long and strong speech about the benefits of Great Ormond Street hospital. Does she agree that although the hospital is based in London, it actually provides specialist care across the UK, including for some of our constituents in Devon?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely correct comment. He is absolutely right that Great Ormond Street hospital makes a fantastic contribution across the country, and those of us representing the south-west have constituents who have directly benefited from the fantastic services that the hospital offers. He was quite right to make that point.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The extra money going to Great Ormond Street hospital is well appreciated by people across the United Kingdom. However, many children’s charities tell me that there is an issue about drugs, in that more of them need to be made available. The second Bill is about off-patent drugs. Will she support that Bill, because it is hugely important to the very people she is talking about?

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about drugs. The Government are absolutely focused on that issue. Far be it from me to take words out of the Minister’s mouth, but I am sure that he may well cover the hon. Gentleman’s comments on drugs in his response. Among other things, the special cancer drugs fund has made a considerable difference to many people suffering from cancer.

On that note, I will carry on talking about this really important piece of legislation, and to explain to hon. Members a little more about the history of the hospital. As I originally stated—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, you are looking querulous. May I continue?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has the floor, but I am sure that she will want to have some regard to the fact that several other hon. Members wish to speak. I am cautiously optimistic that she is approaching her peroration.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Mr Speaker, this is such a fascinating subject that I want to ensure it gets the air time it deserves. I know that my hon. Friends also have a lot to say. I am sure that we will manage to have an interesting and long debate.

[Maggie Throup]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must get things right not just because of the financial implications for the charity, but because of the charity’s reputation?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. Reputation is critical. The changes that we are making today will add to the charity’s reputation and help it to raise further funds for what is a worthwhile cause.

If I may, I will continue to explain the fascinating history of Great Ormond Street hospital, the contribution it has made to our country, and why the Bill is so important and valuable and has my support and that of the Government, despite the hospital’s humble beginnings. Just as you arrived, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was explaining that the hospital originally had just 10 beds and two doctors, and was situated in a 17th-century townhouse. It has constantly redeveloped itself to ensure that it is suitable for the treatment of modern illnesses as medicine develops.

Before the inception of the NHS in 1948, Great Ormond Street was a voluntary hospital that ran fundraising campaigns to expand its size from the 1850s onwards. Because private fundraising was strongly regulated, it was owing to the support of people such as Barrie who left legacies to the hospital that it was able to develop the highest standards.

Throughout its history, the hospital has been at the forefront of numerous breakthroughs in paediatric healthcare, such as appointing the first consultant paediatric surgeon, Denis Browne, in 1928; opening the UK’s first heart and lung unit in 1947; opening the UK’s first leukaemia research unit in 1961; pioneering the first heart and lung bypass machine for children in 1961; performing the first successful bone marrow transplant in Britain in 1979; undertaking the world’s first stem cell-supported trachea transplant in a child in 2010; becoming Europe’s first children’s hospital to offer a portable haemodialysis service in 2010; and opening the Newlife birth defects research centre in 2012, which is Europe’s first research centre to tackle birth defects.

Great Ormond Street hospital would not be able to make such advances without the relevant and up-to-date equipment it has. Thanks to its supporters, it is able to provide its patients with leading-edge equipment, so that its exceptional doctors and nurses can improve diagnosis and treatment, and continue to provide children with the world-class care they need. In one notable instance, a 15-year-old machine developed an unrepairable fault and had to be replaced in 2012. If the funds to upgrade it had not been available, the hospital would have had to continue to refer patients elsewhere for imaging, which would have been inconvenient for families and costly to the hospital.

The equipment owned by the hospital includes specialist X-ray equipment, such as cone beam CT technology, which can take high-quality 3D images with less radiation than a standard CT scanner. The ultrasound equipment in the Dubowitz neuromuscular centre is used to assess about 350 patients each year and helps clinicians to make a faster and more accurate diagnosis of conditions such as muscular dystrophies, myopathies and motor neurone disease. Nutritional equipment includes equipment that can help patients, such as premature babies, those in intensive care, or those receiving treatment for gastrointestinal conditions or cancer. Because those patients are in a fragile state or receiving strong medication, they need a precise recipe with the right balance of fluids and nutrients, and the hospital is able to provide it.

[Maggie Throup]

My hon. Friend has explained precisely why Great Ormond Street hospital needs extra charitable money. It carries out fantastic work that is over and above the work found in so many other hospitals, and it is renowned across the world for its work. Whatever money it can raise through charitable donations is important.

[Anne Marie Morris]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. It is right that the money goes towards new, far-reaching, novel pieces of equipment and medical solutions, which are exactly what we need in this country. We should be proud of that and do everything we can to enable the hospital to gain as much funding as possible.

The hospital is able to facilitate a number of different wards for a number of different treatments, and that is due to the continued contribution from donations and legacies. Barrie’s contribution has been so significant over the years that, fittingly, there is a Peter Pan ward—I am sorry that there is not yet a Wendy ward, but I am sure we can do something about that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The Lost Boys ward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris]

Indeed. Many other items within the hospital commemorate Barrie’s donation. Those include a statue of Peter Pan and Tinker Bell at the hospital entrance, a plaque dedicated to Barrie in the hospital chapel, a Tinker Bell playroom in the Octav Botnar wing, and a tiled mural of Neverland, which was created and donated by art students at the University of Wolverhampton.

The ability of charities to become independent and subject to regulation by the Charity Commission is important. That can be seen in the 2012 consultation that set out the rationale for reform. A number of NHS charities, their representative bodies and interest groups, have called for this reform. They raised concerns that the NHS legislative framework, and how it is applied, limits the freedom of charities to grow and best support their beneficiaries.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am, in the words of Mr Speaker, “slowly but surely” coming to the end of my contribution on this important subject. The Department’s overall conclusion was that it is appropriate to allow NHS charities that wish to move to independent status to do so, and that that should be facilitated, subject to suitable safeguards being adopted and a suitable process followed. The Department of Health said in its review of the regulation and governance of NHS charities that since the majority of respondents supported the principle behind proposals for the transition of NHS charities to independent charity status, it is appropriate to allow those who wish to follow such a course to proceed, subject to appropriate safeguards and process. At the same time the Department will ensure that organisations that wish to retain the status of an NHS charity may do so.

Given the fantastic work done by Great Ormond Street hospital, the equipment it uses to treat children, and the staff it trains to deploy that treatment, I am thoroughly supportive of ensuring that funds from legacies such as that of J. M. Barrie continue to reach their intended destinations. His legacy does not live on in only a monetary way, or a legal way as we discuss this Bill, because Peter Pan has had a societal impact on this country—even the Wendy houses that many hon. Friends have no doubt bought for their children or a young relative originate from Barrie’s play and the house built for young Wendy Darling. As Barrie once wrote:

“I suppose it’s like the ticking crocodile, isn’t it? Time is chasing after all of us.”

Other Members want to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close. The Bill will help to ensure that Great Ormond Street continues to do fantastic work, and at the same time it will implement some of the Department of Health recommendations from the review of the regulation and governance of NHS charities. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to support the Second Reading of the Bill. Discussing a Bill about Peter Pan proposed by Wendy was not one of the subjects I expected to debate in this Chamber when I was elected, but the Bill has a serious purpose as it makes clear the independence of the charitable trusts it covers.

It is right that we should have oversight when public money is being spent, and the NHS is subject to plenty of oversight, including through this Parliament, but this is not about taxpayers’ cash but about the additional money that people freely donate. People donating should have confidence that the trustees, who are completely independent and whose goals are solely those of the charity, will decide exactly how the funds will be used. A trustee or director appointed by the Secretary of State will clearly be cognisant of their duties under charity law to put the charity’s interests first, but being appointed by the Secretary of State creates the idea that such trustees are there to represent someone else: even though those who are familiar with the law will understand the role of a trustee, that is not the impression given. It makes sense that the charities referred to in the Bill are in a similar position to most other charities in the country and may, through their members and supporters, find trustees and appoint them to the board to exercise their duties rather than having someone appointed for them by the Government.

Charities in the NHS bring additionality to NHS services; they are not about replacing them or replacing funding from the taxpayer, but about doing extra things. I think particularly of the Torbay Hospital League of Friends, an independent charity that raises money to support services at Torbay hospital and uses its flexibility and independence to get people to donate. Its “This is critical” campaign aims to equip the critical care unit that is being built. Public money provides the basic service, whereas charitable bequests and donations enhance the service.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of this independence is that it encourages not only donations but people to give their time? Charities need not just money but volunteers to give their precious time not only for fundraising but to work with families, patients and young children. Does he have any thoughts on that?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Charities depend on the money and time donated. That might mean time donated to raise funds for the charity or, as she mentions, for other work. Everyone can take part, rich or poor. An hour donated is an hour donated. As she will know, Torbay hospital’s cafeteria is staffed by volunteers. It not only raises money for the charity in the hospital but provides a service. People might have come in and heard not great news, or they might be anxious and stressed with a relative in hospital, and they get a valuable pastoral service over a cup of tea and a cake from volunteers who, in some cases, have been involved for many years. They provide an excellent service.

Today, we are naturally talking about the structures and finances of a charity. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, we should ensure that the money cannot go on Lucky Lad in the 3.10, but we should also not forget that volunteers are at the heart of charities and how they operate and work. If the charities are truly independent, that will only enhance their ability to attract volunteers, get donations and make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. I do not think I am trespassing on any party political ground in saying that we should recognise that people’s desire to give is built on more than just paying their taxes; it is built on an innate desire to help their communities and their neighbours. That is an instinct that cannot and should not be stopped, and it will always find its way into other areas where there are services funded by the state, but it adds a dimension that is very special. Each is valuable in its own way, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh) spoke of his young days visiting hospitals as the son of a paediatrician. My dad, who might be watching this debate, is a retired general practitioner and I also remember visiting hospitals with him. Perhaps, like me, the sight of needles and machines that go “ping” were sufficient to put my hon. Friend off going into medicine, which means he has ended up in the same place as me. Those days, however, were valuable and we are grateful to all those who work in the health service and have made a contribution. As a senior paediatrician, my hon. Friend’s father will have certainly done a lot of good throughout his career.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) also supported the change in the law and invited us to comprehend the risks involved in various trustees supporting Lucky Lad at Uttoxeter. Unfortunately, my brief does not extend to whether that is common practice among trustees or whether it was a major inspiration for the Bill, but my hon. Friend made his point well and it is covered by what we will go on to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke of the importance—he has also just mentioned this in his intervention—of recognising that Great Ormond Street hospital serves so many of us. He also spoke of the Torbay Hospital League of Friends and its “This is critical” campaign, which is a perfect example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash has said, of a combination of people who recognise that funds are available through the national health service, but who want to make an extra contribution on top of that. We wish that and similar campaigns well.

[Anne Marie Morris]

We have heard today about a great number of institutions that undertake such voluntary work. This is a timely debate, because we are approaching Christmas, a time when more and more of this sort of work, volunteering and giving takes place. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely on point for us to be debating the Bill at this time of year?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes her point well. This is traditionally a time when people look very hard at what they plan to give, both for the Christmas season and for next year. A number of appeals will be run and local hospitals recognise that this is an important time for them. I imagine that many charities will benefit from the sentiment described by my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend neatly sums up her Bill, which I will now address, and reminds us of the work of so many different trusts.

Before I finish my tributes, may I briefly mention the work of the Bedford Hospitals Charity and Brian Woodrow in my constituency? They have made an immense contribution to my constituents and those around Bedfordshire, not least through the Primrose appeal and the magnificent Macmillan cancer treatment centre that resulted from it.

Although I intend to go into the technical details of the Bill, because that is important, I also want to speak in the following debate. I do not want to take an unreasonable amount of time, but I hope the House will appreciate that there are things I must cover.

I am delighted we have the opportunity to debate and discuss NHS charities, which provide support to our health system that is crucial to the delivery of better care for patients. Thanks to the generosity of the people of this country, NHS charities have been able to deliver valuable enhancements to the wellbeing and experience of patients and staff for many decades. I hope that today’s debate has helped to publicise the valuable work the charities do, and that it will encourage more people to give them their support.

This Government have listened to NHS charities and delivered the opportunity for those that wish to have greater independence in order to evolve and grow to meet the needs of their beneficiaries. A number of charities have seized the opportunity to become independent, with others planning to do so in the near future.

The Bill puts the last pieces of the jigsaw in place to deliver the vision the Government set out in 2014. When the previous Government came to office in 2010, a number of NHS charities and their representative bodies and interest groups were calling for reform. They were concerned about the NHS framework and inflexibility. The Government were also committed to deregulation, promoting localism and the big society, and freeing the NHS from central Government controls.

Following a review in 2011, the Government consulted in 2012 on options for changes to the regulation and governance of NHS charities. The fundamental aim of the proposals was to review the legislative powers relating to the governance of NHS charities, to preserve and extend their independence from central Government.

In their 2014 response to the consultation, the Government noted that the majority of respondents supported the principle of the proposals for the transition of NHS charities to independent charity status. They concluded that it would be appropriate to allow those NHS charities that wish to do so to convert to become an independent charity.

[Anne Marie Morris]

One of the questions we have not touched on is how that transition will be made. Will the Minister add a few words about how, in practical terms, we will move from having two sets of trustees and pots of money to one set? We clearly want that to be as unbureaucratic as possible.

[Alistair Burt]

It will be. The procedure is very simple. Some of it is laid out in the Bill and some of it will be discussed in Committee. The intention is to make it very simple for trustees, and some charities are already moving that way. It is certainly not the intention to let any bureaucracy get in the way of the process, and there is no reason why it should do so.

The Government concluded that where trustees have been appointed by the Secretary of State, the provisions for the appointments will be repealed as soon as possible. I am pleased that the Bill will remove those powers. The Bill will confer the rights to the play “Peter Pan” on the new independent charity for Great Ormond Street. That will enable the charity to complete its conversion by removing the statutory obstacle preventing Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity from becoming fully independent.

An informative debate has taken place and, as I have said, I thank all hon. Members for their speeches. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for all the hard work and endeavour she has put into presenting the Bill today. We salute her for the way in which she has applied herself, her diligent research and her time spent engaging with NHS charities. I also want to pay tribute to Baroness Blackstone for her foresight and determination in securing Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity’s rights to the royalties from the play “Peter Pan” so that current and future generations can benefit from J. M. Barrie’s generosity.

As several Members have mentioned, the work of NHS charities often goes unheralded. The charities play a crucial role in supporting the NHS in a wide range of initiatives and projects, including research, new buildings and equipment, and helping to provide services over and above those provided by the NHS. Some have large sums at their disposal, many have much less, but they all make a big contribution to improving the lives of patients and staff.

Thanks to the generosity of the public and the hard work of its fundraisers, Birmingham Children’s Hospital Charities reached its £2 million target for its children’s heart appeal. It will make Birmingham the only children’s hospital in Britain with its own hybrid theatre, which will enable two procedures to be done at the same time so that children do not have to go back in for a second operation at a later date. Fundraising helped to build the hybrid theatre and a new catheterisation laboratory, where keyhole cardiac surgery can be carried out, and it will increase the number of intensive care beds from 20 to 31. The trust invested some of its own funds in the project, and its supporters raised the final £2 million in a variety of imaginative ways, from sponsored abseils and a freezing Snowdon swim to major corporate donations and half marathons. The new theatre is now in use and has treated 126 patients so far, many with hugely complex heart problems. It will treat an extra 300 patients a year, and there are plans for more in the future. That is a perfect example of how the work of a hospital and a charity can coincide, and of how work done in one area can benefit other areas throughout the region.

The Sheffield Hospitals Charity has provided funding for a revolutionary bionic exoskeleton suit in the spinal cord injury centre. This revolutionary suit enables paralysed patients to experience standing and walking, sometimes for the first time, with the suit’s assistance. The University College London Hospital Charity supported the construction of the Cotton Rooms, the first four-star, purpose-built boutique hotel for NHS patients. Opened in 2012 at a cost of £4.5 million, it has 35 rooms for patients and their partners. Over 1,000 patients a year typically stay at the hotel, spending between one and 25 nights.

Some charities support vital research work. The Chelsea and Westminster Health Charity is supporting the Borne programme, which has two ambitions: first, to prevent death and disability in pregnancy and childbirth, and secondly, to create lifelong health for mothers and babies. In the UK alone, one in 10 babies is born too soon; that is nearly 80,000 babies a year. Premature birth is responsible for 70% of disability and death in new-born babies. The charity has raised £3 million, which has enabled it to identify treatments that could reduce the risk of pre-term labour in high-risk pregnancies from 35% to 10% or less. It has also supported a study highlighting the link between maternal diet and a baby’s brain development.

NHS charities are supporting and enhancing mental health services. Poor mental health is one of the major challenges facing society today. Never in my political life have I noticed a time when mental health has been given so much attention in so many quarters of the House and by Members from all the different parties. I think that the cross-party contribution to the development of advancements in mental health treatment will be one of the signature features of this Parliament. I welcome the interest that has been shown by those, including Front Benchers, on both sides of the House.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I am delighted that the Minister has raised the issue of mental health, because what we achieve in Parliament is not just done through legislation and regulation or by debate in the House. Does he agree that communities have taken this issue on board? I have been involved in dementia-friendly projects in two of my towns, whereby everybody in the street is made well aware of what they can do to help the confused or those with mental health problems.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the community’s engagement and the way in which it can work with existing health services. The renewed attention paid to mental health will provide many further such opportunities.