Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

That is right, and it prompts a question about whether some advantage is to be gained by the commissioner providing more help at the initial stages to try to signpost people. Indeed, the annual report states that the ombudsman receives about 40,000 contacts a year, including queries about where and how to complain about public and non-public services. Of those 40,000 contacts, 27,566 were inquiries for the commissioner, which demonstrates that many members of the public will quite innocently contact the commissioner about matters that do not fall within her responsibilities.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does that show that new clause 1 is ill conceived? It states that before people make a complaint they must get an estimate of how long it is likely to take to resolve it. However, the bigger issue for people before they make a complaint is what the chances are of it being accepted for investigation.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. People may assume that they have simply to make a complaint for it to be followed up, but as statistics from the commissioner’s report show, that is not the case. Many complainants would presumably like someone to deal with their complaint, but are disappointed at the outset before they have even got going, and are told, “I’m sorry; you’ve come to the wrong person.” It may be that there is nobody to deal with that complaint, and the complainant is sent off to look elsewhere.

I have one further point on the detail of new clause 1. If the commissioner was expected to make a more accurate assessment of the time within which the complaint is likely to be completed, she would have to find out much more detail about the nature of the complaint. That would obviously entail more work for her and her staff. It is the law of unintended consequences: we may find that imposing more obligations and burdens on the staff of the ombudsman’s office, in an attempt to be helpful, extends the length of time it takes for a complaint to be resolved, because staff will be engaged in assessing how long it would take to deal with a new complaint, rather than getting on with dealing with complaints. That is a problem.

I accept that all these matters could be dealt with by providing extra resources. We have not really addressed that point so far this morning; it is the elephant in the room. I do not think this is outside the scope of the new clause. If we impose, or even just set out, an expectation on the commissioner to follow this provision, there will be implications for the deployment of resources. The commissioner could rightly say, “Well, it is all very well expecting me to give an estimate to every member of the public who approaches my office of how long their case will take, but where are the extra resources?” That would be a legitimate question to ask. Otherwise, the commissioner is likely to say that complaints might take about a year, which would probably not be very helpful to most prospective complainants.

New clause 2 relates to complainants who, perhaps having looked at the website, have decided that regardless of the length of time it will take, they will make a complaint. The new clause states:

“The Health Service Commissioner shall make available to the complainant, at the outset of an investigation, an estimate of the period within which the investigation is likely to be completed.”

That implies that initial details have already been taken. I would expect this to be rather more specific advice than that provided to a member of the public. This is someone who has lodged a specific complaint, which the commissioner has accepted. It is a small point, and I have not bothered tabling an amendment to new clause 2, but I would prefer it to read, “The health service commissioner shall give the complainant, within 14 days of the outset of an investigation, an estimate of the period in which the investigation is likely to be completed.” I would have tried to tighten it up a little bit, but I nevertheless accept that that is the wording put forward by my right hon. Friend.

I raised a point about providing updates. My right hon. Friend’s response was that there was no need to legislate on that, because he felt that the commissioner was providing updates anyway. If she is, I could use the same argument about new clauses 1 and 2. If we have no evidence—no one has been able to provide any—that this is a problem, either for members of the public, in respect of new clause 1, or for specific complainants, in respect of new clause 2, I have to question whether these new clauses are required at all. On balance—I accept that it is a fine balance—I do not think that they are required, and should he press either new clause to a Division, I would vote against it, but only because, as he has said himself about legislation to provide updates, there is no need for legislation to require the commissioner to provide this information to the public or a specific complainant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Yes, there are laws of nature and there are laws of man, and in Eric Forth’s case, there are forces of nature which sometimes are the forces of man. It is a wonderful paradox, but given that it was my right hon. Friend who provoked me to conjure the five laws, I blame him, not myself.

My right hon. Friend made a very thoughtful speech, and perhaps met Eric Forth’s sixth law, which is that all this has to be tested—that is the point of this House, and it was Eric Forth, more than anybody, who insisted that we did not just shovel through, sausage-like, a set of laws because the Administration or some pressure group wanted them, but that we tested them, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North has been doing that this morning.

This reform is likely to be the first of a number picked up by the Executive, not by us. The Public Administration Committee is looking at this, the Department of Health is looking at it, the ombudsman’s office itself is looking at it, and the Cabinet Office is also looking at the issues raised by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend. The Executive will be aiming to minimise the number of times complaints are turned down out of hand; to minimise the number of times people are told, “You’ve got the wrong department. Complain to somebody else”; and to minimise the constraints on the ombudsman’s office that might not permit it to intervene; and they will also be aiming to deal with the resource issue. It seems to me that we do not need to solve those problems. It is for the Executive to do so properly in Executive time, with debate going on across the Front-Bench teams. It is for them to deal with that; we are dealing with a simple problem here.

[Mr Chope]

When my right hon. Friend discussed the Bill in Committee, he contemplated the prospect of introducing amendments at this stage to reflect the outcome of the deliberations taking place in government and elsewhere. In the light of the Government’s failure to deliver a timely response, how much confidence does he have that they have the will to do this?

[Mr Davis]

A lot of confidence. I do not wish to pre-empt the Government’s forthcoming announcements, but neither do I want to push them into doing anything ill thought through. If the law of unintended consequences applies to anything, it applies to Government legislation—more than anything else. I am confident that this will happen, and in a way that will command support across the House. As my hon. Friend knows, it may be dangerous to make a prediction, but I think there will be agreement. Whatever happens in the general election, I believe these reforms are coming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Arbuthnot]

After hearing valuable comments from both sides of the House, I have come to the conclusion that my new clauses would not be helpful and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



New Clause 3

Statutory duty of the Health Service Ombudsman

‘It shall be a statutory duty of the Health Service Ombudsman to resolve any complaints within twelve months of the date when the complaint was received.’—(Mr Chope.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ‘Commissioner’ insert—

‘before the end of that period’.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘together with an estimate of the target date for completion of the investigation.’

Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(b) The Commissioner shall subsequently keep the complainant informed, as far as reasonably practicable, as to the progress of the investigation.’

Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘( ) If the reason for the delay specified in Section 2HA is lack of financial resources it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to set out the action which is being taken to remedy that lack of financial resource’.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘, and’ and insert—

‘(ba) the reasons for each of those delays, and’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

The new clause would simplify the Bill enormously. It would require the health service ombudsman to resolve any complaint within 12 months of the date on which it was received. As we are paying tribute to my late friend Eric Forth, may I say that the new clause would have commended itself enormously to dear Eric, because it puts on the tin what people say we want to put on the tin. With the greatest of respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I think he has been timid in his Bill. We know that 99% of these cases are dealt with within one year. The new clause would require that 100% of them be dealt with within one year, and there would also be a sanction, because a breach of a statutory duty can be justiciable. That would concentrate minds. If it looked as though a complaint was being dealt with slowly, the health service ombudsman would be able to say, “You’ve got to get a move on because we’ve got a statutory duty to resolve this within one year.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard the comments by the Minister on the previous group of amendments but I think she addressed that point precisely. There is a complexity within the system that cannot be anticipated, and it would artificially fetter the discretion of the commissioner if an arbitrary time limit were put in place. Does he not agree that there are occasions when the complexity is such that we simply cannot fix the rigid metallic corset of a time limit on it without diminishing the value of the investigation?

[Mr Chope]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that, which is why I tabled the new clause. As he says, the Minister was addressing new clauses 1 and 2, and I would not at this stage anticipate her response to the debate we are now having on new clause 3. If a statutory duty is in place, minds will be concentrated. That means that the ombudsman would, for example, be able to explain to a complainant who it was who was not providing the information that was necessary in a timely fashion and say, “If we don’t get a move on, your complaint will be time-barred because we will dismiss it on the basis that we have a lack of evidence.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), may I say that I am not entirely sure that corsets are normally metallic—I believe they are generally made of whalebone? Leaving that aside, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) ought to be introducing a shorter time limit, because we all know that work expands to fill the time available. [Interruption.] Parkinson’s law, indeed. As soon as a 12-month time limit is introduced, that is the time that will be taken. If 95% of complaints are being dealt with within six months, six months would seem to be quite a good limit.

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that he did not put down an amendment to my new clause to replace the limit of 12 months with one of six months. We know that the Bills that we debate on Fridays involve an iterative process. If the new clause were accepted today by my right hon. Friend, we would start off with a 12-month limit, which might in due course move to six months. That deadline, which will have the effect of concentrating minds, makes the measure legally meaningful, whereas, at the moment, everything in the Bill is legally meaningless. The Bill is, as someone has said in relation to the draft clauses of the Scotland Bill, “legally vacuous”.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

How does my hon. Friend deal with the problem that there might be some issues that are outside the control of the ombudsman? For example, the ombudsman might be hoping for a response from a health provider that he is simply not getting. How would the ombudsman then obey the statutory duty that we would be applying?

[Mr Chope]

Unlike quite a lot of organisations, the ombudsman is accountable to this House. If the ombudsman were experiencing the difficulty to which my right hon. Friend refers, I would expect the ombudsman, the chief executive or chairman to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and say that they wished the Public Administration Committee to look into the matter and put pressure on the recalcitrant Department. In a sense, my right hon. Friend is saying that, because we may have customers—if that is the right expression—who are minded to delay things, we should facilitate enabling them to delay things beyond a year. We need to focus on who the real customer is. The customer is the person who has made a complaint, and whose complaint has been accepted for investigation by the ombudsman. In my view, they are entitled to have a decision on that complaint within 12 months, which is why I put in this statutory duty.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It occurs to me that, for once, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) is wrong. If a public body failed to respond to the ombudsman, it should be found against and that would be quite a penalty and an incentive not to procrastinate.

[Mr Chope]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a first-class point. I hope that, when the Minister responds to this short debate, she will support the line that is being taken. We need to ensure that there is no scope for statutory bodies to avoid their responsibilities to deliver and that we facilitate the ombudsman to reach a result within 12 months of a complaint being made.

At the moment, the ombudsman is dealing with about 4,000 complaints a year, some 3,000 of which are related to health. The cost of those complaints to the taxpayer is about £4,000 a time. As the taxpayer is investing that amount of money, a reasonable return on that would be to say that those complaints should be dealt with in a maximum period of one year. If we pass new clause 3 and include it in the Bill, we will have a useful piece of legislation, instead of an empty vessel—although even an empty vessel with the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden on it will be cherished by many people, especially his constituents.

Amendment 3 is more specific. It will require the commissioner, in fulfilling the obligations set out in clause 1, to explain the delay before the end of the 12-month period, rather than after it. At the moment, there is a lacuna here—perhaps it is a deliberate one—to ensure that the minimum pressure is applied, which will show that we are just engaged in gesture politics. I hope that that is not correct. As it stands, clause 1(2) says:

“Where the Commissioner has not concluded an investigation before the end of the 12-month period…the Commissioner must send a statement explaining the reason for the delay to the person who made the complaint.”

But it does not say when the commissioner should send that statement. Unless there is a requirement on the timing of that statement, the measure is completely meaningless. It may be that that statement will be sent at the same time as the ultimate decision is made. In an effort to make the Bill do what my right hon. Friend wants it to do, which is to put pressure on the health service commissioner to deal with complaints in a timely fashion, I am suggesting a modest amendment.

Amendment 4 is on the same theme. When that statement is sent, it would not just explain the reason for the delay, but contain an estimate of the target date for completion of the investigation. I accept that, in itself, that would not be much use, because if there is another target date—it could be in another year—there may still be no remedy for the complainant. At least, though, it would force the ombudsman service to apply its mind to how much longer it thought it was reasonable for the investigation of the complaint to take.

Amendment 5 brings us into a slightly different territory. I suspect that a main reason for the delay in dealing with these complaints is a lack of resource. The amendment would add to clause 1 the words:

“If the reason for the delay specified in Section 2HA is lack of financial resources it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to set out the action which is being taken to remedy that lack of financial resource.”

Again, if the delay is due to financial reasons, it is surely important that the world outside, and particularly the complainant, should know about that so that they can make the necessary complaints. It is also important that the ombudsman is able to say, “Well, because of a lack of financial resources, I am not able to deal with these cases as quickly as I would have wished. Therefore, I am asking Parliament for more money to help us meet our case load.”

There is a £15 million budget for this exercise. Each case currently costs some £4,000 on average. The average compensation payment that was paid out in 628 cases amounts to less than £1,000. I am not sure that anyone coming from another planet and looking at this system would say that it is financially well focused. The average cost of dealing with a complaint is over £4,000. The average amount paid to a successful complainant is just less than £1,000. That shows that there is a potential problem in relation to the funding of the ombudsman service. That may be exacerbated by the ombudsman’s decision to take on more complaints for investigation by “lowering the threshold” for investigating such complaints. As the annual report makes clear, the consequence of that is an increase in the number of complaints being investigated, only a reduced proportion of which is being concluded in favour of the complainant. Expectations among the complainants are being raised, but they are not being delivered on by the ombudsman because a lot more cases are being taken on which probably should not have been taken on in the first place. The report states that because the ombudsman is

“taking on many more investigations than before, the proportion of investigations…upheld or partly upheld has inevitably declined”.

I think that the expression “inevitably declined” is a bit of an underestimate, because it has declined from 86% to 42%, which is a dramatic reduction in one year.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Might one not read that in a positive way by saying that if the complaints are found not to have been justified, that suggests that the national health service is doing a pretty good job?

[Mr Chope]

I do not go along with that, I am afraid. It is rather like saying that we should encourage the maximum number of complaints against something, engaging bureaucracy and taxpayer expenditure to deal with the complaints, to give some perverse satisfaction to the people who want to say that the Government service, in this case the health service, is doing a good job. If we want to measure consumer satisfaction with public services, there is a much more direct way of doing it than looking at how many complaints against their services have been made and rejected.

By way of an aside, one difficulty with the ombudsman service is that it cannot take on complaints from public sector organisations. In my constituency, for example, a head teacher of a school that was unfairly done down by Ofsted was told—or it was implied—that he could complain to the ombudsman service, but the ombudsman service deemed his complaint to be outside its scope. Although he is an individual, as he is the head of a school, Ferndown upper school, the complaint is regarded as coming from a public organisation and therefore does not come within the scope of the ombudsman’s rules. I would prefer to see the scope of the ombudsman to investigate issues widened, while keeping a focus on complaints that are prima facie likely to be well founded, to going down the road of saying that we should have many more complaints and that when we reject those complaints it means that the public services are doing very well. That is where I would disagree with the ombudsman service’s strategy, which is to try to maximise the number of complaints.

When people make complaints, it often involves quite an effort on their part and they normally make them on the basis that they expect a positive result. They do not make them hoping that their complaint will be rejected, thereby endorsing the national health service, local government organisation or other body for performing in a way that did not result in the complaint against them being justified. The best organisations are organisations that have no complaints against them and I should have thought that that was what we should be aiming for—a health service in which there were no complaints, or in which all the complaints were dealt with long before they came before the ombudsman.

Those are my amendments. I shall leave my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) to address his amendments 1 and 2. If some of these amendments were accepted, I think the Bill might have some worth and value.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggests that I might like to address amendments 1 and 2. During the last debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out that I was not suggesting that the health service ombudsman should keep the complainants properly informed and I said that I was persuaded that it was not actually necessary to do so. What I should have said was that I had proposed an amendment to do so in the next group of amendments, but during the course of that debate I persuaded myself out of the value of amendments 1 and 2 so I think it would be best for me simply to sit down and not move them. What my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said in answer to that debate satisfied me that more detailed legislation for the ombudsman, apart from the extent to which my right hon. Friend wishes to change the law, is probably not helpful.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I do not agree with the rather rigid approach that his new clause 3 might introduce. Inevitably, there will be some complaints that are so complicated and in which so many people are involved in answering the issues that it would be a bad idea to place on to the ombudsman a duty that, with the best will in the world, they might simply not be able to fulfil. During the course of the morning I have been looking for a quotation from Idi Amin, referring to someone who had displeased him. He said, “When we catch him, he will be executed. He will have a trial, of course, but by trial I do not mean one of those things that goes on all day.” I think that that is the approach favoured by my hon. Friend in the new clause. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not support his new clause and fail to move my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend has achieved his wish.

I think that what is set out in amendment 5 would fall into a set pattern, with the commissioner saying every year, “Well, if you gave us a bit more money, we’d have a few more staff and things would get better.”

[Mr Chope]

With the greatest respect, I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the amendment. The idea is to increase transparency so that rather than the commissioner being able to complain sotto voce that this is all because they do not have enough money, that would have to be brought into the open, and then the very points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have been making about the ability of many public sector organisations to get a lot more bang for their buck could be exposed to public debate.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He suggests that the amendment is purely about transparency, which means it has more merit than I had accorded it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I started off being flattered by the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) that I had been in some way seduced into mitigating the Bill, but I think that I am far beyond the point at which seduction, either metaphorical or real, is an option. Perhaps that is why, when it comes to new clause 3, which I think is the most substantive amendment in the group, I am not as much of an expert as the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) appear to be on the subject of corsets. As I understand it, corsets constrict things at one point and let them out at another. The risk in new clause 3 is that it would put such constraints on the ombudsman that problems would be created elsewhere.

There have been two problems with the operation of the ombudsman over the past few years: not meeting timetables and making mistakes. On a number of occasions the ombudsman has got things wrong, which has made things even more acutely painful for the people seeking help and support, because the ombudsman has had to go back and correct mistakes. Indeed, that happened on a number of occasions in the very case that is at the centre of this piece of legislation. Were we to go down this route, we might create a series of problems arising from the ombudsman making erroneous recommendations and proposals, which would of course lead to the issues being multiplied down the generations, rather than dealt with straightaway.

We must also remember that some of the issues that the ombudsman deals with not only require information from other Departments and other parts of Government, but sometimes involve contested arguments and may have legal liability associated with them, so we should not forget that there is a natural justice aspect to this. Finally, these issues are very often on the edge of science. The sepsis problem was one such issue, for which the medical profession is still seeking new solutions. We should be wary of going so far on this that we cause another set of problems. That is why I think the Bill as printed strikes the right balance.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend refers to potential legal liabilities, but my understanding is that anybody who comes before the ombudsman with a complaint has to give a guarantee that they are not intent on taking legal redress.

[Mr Davis]

I am not sure that the legal liability relates simply to the person bringing the complaint. It could relate to other people too, such as those contracting services. It also relates very much to reputation. Someone may, in effect, be asked to make a confession according to a timetable, which is not a good idea in a statute.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) in his critique of amendment 5. On amendment 4, I would leave that to practice guidelines, rather than putting it into law. It is dangerous, as I said earlier, to create lots of onerous responsibilities in law. The aim of the Bill is to exert pressure and give a degree of public guarantee, not to try to tell the ombudsman how to cross every t and dot every i.

The one amendment with which I felt some sympathy but am still uncertain about is amendment 3. I presumed from the Bill that the ombudsman’s department would respond close to the 12-month point when it knew that it might go past it. Earlier, it is likely to have to adjust the timetable; later is not tolerable. I am uncertain whether it may lead to perverse or unintended consequences if we do exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has proposed. I will have to think about that. The Bill has to go through a Lords stage. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the amendment today, but I give him an undertaking that I will look at the matter closely and see if I can come up with a form of words that I can suggest as a change in the Lords; I will let him know if I am not able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, other Members have made very good points about amendment 5, which centres on investigations that take more than 12 months to conclude. My understanding is that lack of resources has played no part in any single investigation by the health service commissioner that has taken more than 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made an interesting point about the possible unintended consequence of the insertion of a resource clause. The amendment does not pick up on an issue that we have reason to believe is a major problem, so it would not be right to legislate on it. The strength of the Bill is that it picks up on a specific identified issue of poor complaint handling by the health service ombudsman. For that reason, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed and that the Bill will proceed unamended.

[Mr Chope]

May I thank everybody who has participated in this debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the Bill’s promoter, for his generous offer to at least consider amendment 3? I do not mean to be churlish, but it is a problem that we are debating the Bill on the penultimate private Members’ Friday. If my right hon. Friend were to choose, on reflection, to incorporate amendment 3 in an amendment in the other place, he would, in effect, jeopardise his Bill, because we would then have to consider it again after it had been amended. The Minister has indicated her potential support, so perhaps she would like to intervene on me to guarantee that, should that eventuality arise, the Government would give the Bill the necessary time to ensure that it was not frustrated by that process but reached the statute book. I must say that I am tempted to press amendment 3 to a vote, because it might be easier to include it in the Bill now rather than have a promise that something will be done later.

One could sum up this debate by saying, “Excuses, excuses, excuses.” It is so easy for public sector organisations to make excuses about why they cannot meet particular time limits.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend has made a valid point about the remaining number of private Members’ Fridays. I hope that the ombudsman will at least read this debate and recognise that it would be best practice to put into her report the relevant time—in other words, as amendment 3 says,

“before the end of that period”.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting that suggestion, which could help, on the record.

On the issue of excuses, I fear that we are entering the territory of double standards. When my constituents who are company directors are required to submit their company accounts by a particular day and fail so to do, or when other constituents are required to submit their tax return by 31 January and fail to do so, that failure incurs a penalty of £100 and there is no room for excuses such as family bereavements, delays by accountants or third parties and all the rest of it. In relation to the excuses made by Departments, or the ombudsman in this case, on which we want to place similar obligations, we are not consistent.

[Mr David Davis]

My hon. Friend has made a minor slip. The ombudsman is not a Department; it oversees Departments, responding to and being overseen by a parliamentary Committee.

At the end of the day, my hon. Friend may have a very good point about the timing of amendment 3. If he is right, the alternative would be for me to make it very plain to the ombudsman that that is what Parliament expects. It is certainly what I expect and what I intended in drafting the Bill. Rather than jeopardise the Bill, we should make sure, as is very easy to do, that the ombudsman understands that point, as does the parliamentary Committee overseeing it, which is our final recourse.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that we are talking not about a Department but about a parliamentary sponsored organisation that tries to hold the Government to account. Yesterday, the House discussed the whole saga of Equitable Life, and what a long drawn-out saga it was. We know that the ombudsman tried desperately to get timely responses from the Treasury and other Departments, and was frustrated at every turn. Looking back at that, we can see that being able to say that she had a statutory obligation to deliver the result of an inquiry within a particular period would have helped rather than hindered her in the work she had to do.

[Jane Ellison]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I tried to draw out the fact that the interests of complainants may not be served by the proposal. As we all know, serious and complex complaints sometimes involve a death or serious injury, which means dealing with a bereaved family. The course of events over the 12-month period may not run smoothly for the very people making the complaint and wanting it to be resolved sensitively, sensibly and properly. This is not about Departments or the NHS making excuses, but about acknowledging that the sensitivities of the complainants and their loved ones mean that the ombudsman needs a little more time in some instances.

[Mr Chope]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. In essence, the more usual scenario in cases of bereavement is that people want what they describe as closure sooner rather than later. The Bill has been introduced to emphasise that it is the will of the House that such matters should normally be dealt with within 12 months.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is wrong about one thing: the ombudsman’s power rests on trust in the accuracy of the case that he or she makes. Equitable Life’s problems did not arise from that, but from the complexities of moral hazard and other such issues. A better example was the case of the state earnings-related pension scheme, in which the ombudsman, the Public Administration Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, under my chairmanship, was able to get the Government to pay out what turned out to be billions of pounds because of errors identified from accurate—though not, as it turned out, fast—investigation. The things we must not jeopardise are the accuracy and effectiveness of the ombudsman’s investigations.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend gives an example of which he had direct experience. All I can say is that it is a pity that people who present their tax return late are not allowed the same indulgence—saying that their affairs are very complex, or that their accountant let them down—to avoid a penalty. There is an issue with ensuring consistency in the rules.

We have had a good run round the circuit on this matter. As in the previous debate, this again emphasises that, as Eric Forth said, Bills should never go through on the nod without proper discussion. Although people may have looked at the Bill and thought it a pretty minor piece of legislation, even such a Bill—I have not seen many that are more minor—is worthy of discussion to work through its implications. Having said that and thanked hon. Members for their contributions to this short debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I hope that I have not been too harsh on my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in the course of this debate.

In preparing for Third Reading, I looked at the explanatory notes to the Bill. The summary states:

“The Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill seeks to increase the effectiveness of the Commissioner (known as the Health Service Ombudsman), who is the final tier of the NHS complaints system. It does so primarily by requiring the Health Service Ombudsman to take action with a view to concluding investigations of complaints within 12 months”.

The Bill does not actually do that. That is my concern. I fear that the Bill is in danger of raising expectations, because it does not require the health service ombudsman to do anything to bring forward a resolution of complaints within 12 months. All it does is to say that if she does not, she has to include references in the annual report and communicate with the complainant.

Even on the basis of the summary in the explanatory notes, I fear that the Bill falls short of the expectations of its promoter. Obviously, if we are in the business of littering the statute book with more pieces of legislation, there is no reason why this one should not be added to the others.

National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Every Government have invested money in the NHS, and quite rightly so. This Government have invested real-terms increases in the NHS, as evidenced by the Commonwealth Fund, which compares health systems internationally. It found this year that, although the United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, it underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. The fund studied 11 nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The United States ranks last, but who ranks first as the best health care system in the world? The United Kingdom. We should all, wherever we sit in this House, be proud that we have the best health care system in the world.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The picture is not quite as rosy as my right hon. Friend paints it, is it? Even The Guardian newspaper reported that the Commonwealth Fund survey showed that the

“only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive.”

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am not entirely sure what point my hon. Friend is trying to make. The fact is that the Commonwealth Fund found that the NHS is the best health care system in the world. I hope that he and everyone in the House takes pride in that. The NHS has many challenges—we are all conscious that with an ageing demography and advances in medical technology, every health care system faces challenges—but we should take pride in being the best.

We also need to be honest about what has gone before. There was an enormous amount of rewriting of history and revisionism in the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham. For those of us who have been in the House for some time, it may be worth looking back and reminding ourselves about what happened in the not-too-distant past.

In the introduction to the NHS plan of July 2000, the then Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, wrote:

“This NHS Plan sets out the steps we now need to take to transform the health service so that it is redesigned around the needs of patients. It means tackling the toughest issues that have been ducked for too long.”

I do not think anyone would ever disagree with that as a statement of intent. He went on:

“For the first time the NHS and the private sector will work more closely together not just to build new hospitals but to provide NHS patients with the operations they need.”

Off-patent Drugs Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 7th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this brilliant Bill. If it does not succeed today, it will certainly succeed in future, because it seems to be based on unanswerable logic. Can he explain why he thinks the Government are against it?

[Jonathan Evans]

It will be for my hon. Friend the Minister to make the Government’s case, although I certainly hope that he will not be lengthier than I am being in endeavouring to make my case.

It is simply not acceptable to sit back and hope for the best: we will let our constituents down by taking such a stance. I have heard it said that the Bill is not necessary and that better information for GPs and clinicians may be the answer, but the reality is that addressing the licensing flaw in the current system, as I have outlined, is the only way to tackle the issue effectively.

I say to colleagues, let us take this opportunity to act and deliver real change for those affected by cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and so many other conditions. That is what the charities supporting them, and the senior clinicians specialising in treating them, are asking for. If we take forward this Bill, we can save and improve lives. If we tinker at the margins, we will not. For those who really want change, who really want people in this country to have access to the best treatments available, the answer is before us and it is clear. A legislative solution is necessary. By passing this Bill, we have an opportunity to change and save our constituents’ lives. I hope that we take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

Let me be clear. What I am saying is that the Government support the intention behind the Bill, which is to achieve greater use of off-label drugs in different indications, but we disagree with the Bill’s proposal for legislation to require the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to license them. For reasons that I will set out, we do not think that is the problem or, therefore, that the proposal is the right solution. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the issue has been raised. It sits foursquare with my mission as the Minister with responsibility for life sciences. I am already working on it and am very keen to make sure that the active work streams I am pursuing embrace the intent behind the Bill.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North for his work. The House has often debated this issue and I am well aware of the strength of feeling among Members of all parties about the importance of, and urgency involved in, getting both new and existing medicines to patients more quickly.

I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his service in this House. As he has said, this is his last year, and I am sure I speak for all of us in paying tribute to and thanking him for all he has done, not only in contributing to the quality of this institution, but in campaigning on this issue.

As my hon. Friend and others may know, I came to this House and my ministerial position after a career in biomedical research—a subject that is very close to my heart—so I am delighted to be able to discuss it and the Bill this morning. During my 15 years working in biomedical research, I saw first hand the serious challenges involved in bringing a new drug to market. I want to address how the landscape of drug development and discovery is changing; the profound way in which technology is changing what is possible; how the economics of 21st-century drug discovery are changing; and the resulting challenges and opportunities for us to do exactly what my hon. Friend seeks to promote, which is greater and more novel use of existing drugs for those patients who will benefit. I will then deal with the key points raised by him.

A rapid transition is taking place from a model of 20th-century drug development whereby the NHS, patients and the health system waited passively and all too patiently for the introduction of new drugs that had been tested, proven and developed with the claim that they would work and were safe for everybody. Over the past several decades, the regulatory barrier required to justify that claim has got higher and higher, as have the costs of developing drugs. On average, it typically takes 10 to 15 years and £1 billion to £1.5 billion to develop a new drug.

My hon. Friend referred to patent life. Members will know how the industry works, but it is worth repeating that, in order to justify the enormous sunk cost of the billions of pounds required to bring a new drug to market, the law provides for the inventor of a new drug to have a patent for 20 years. That mechanism ensures that those who successfully bring an innovation to market are able to get some exclusivity on sales, which allows them to pay for those sunk costs. When a drug becomes off-patent, the generics market kicks in and anybody can make the drug, provided it is made to the right standard and is safe, which allows all of us to benefit from that drug at a vastly reduced price. Indeed, one of the major challenges facing the sector is that, as the cost and time taken to develop a drug increases, the pharmaceutical industry’s pipeline of new drugs is not sufficient. The problem is referred to as the patent cliff, and the sector is going through a radical transition to try to deal with it.

The problem is that the more we know about genetics and the way in which different patients respond to different drugs and diseases, the more we realise that the blockbuster, one-size-fits-all drug that we have got used to the industry giving us is not what we need. What we need are drugs that are much more targeted at patients and their underlying genetic and pharmacokinetic profile. We want drug discovery to be driven by our increasingly sophisticated understanding of how different patients respond to different drugs and diseases.

Underlying that problem is an extraordinary opportunity for this country. In order to reorientate drug discovery around patients, we need an infrastructure that allows people to work in world-class research hospitals with access, at the very highest ethical and regulatory level, to tissues, biomarkers, electronic patient data and longitudinal cohort studies. Nowhere in the world is better equipped to lead that model of translational, personalised and stratified medicine than Britain with the NHS, and through my appointment the Government have signalled their commitment to exploit that opportunity.

We believe there is a real opportunity for the UK and the NHS to lead in the emerging field of stratified and targeted medicines, because no other territories in the world have our 50-year history of an integrated public health system, the records that go with it, its ethical and regulatory standards or its world-class centres of research excellence. If we embrace that model, using genomics and data to understand better how different patients respond, we will also be able to look back at the pharmacopoeia of known and existing drugs and re-profile them for use in particular patient groups, because it will have become clear that they will be effective for them.

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the re-profiling of drugs is itself a major subsector of the life sciences sector. Whole companies, analysts and investors are devoted to mining the pharmacopoeia to find secondary uses, with the intention, of course, of re-patenting the secondary, novel use of an existing drug through tweaking the chemistry and providing the basis for a proprietary claim. Good luck to them—I wish them well—but what my hon. Friend and I want to see is the ability better to use that information in order to find existing drugs which, in their current form, would have a benign impact on a particular patient group. Doctors are perfectly free to use those drugs at the moment.

The truth is that whichever model of drug discovery we pursue, any drug has to be licensed as safe by the MHRA—or, in Europe, by the European Medicines Agency—and then NICE carries out a technology appraisal and makes a recommendation to the NHS about whether such a drug or device has a sufficient cost-benefit to be worth using. Despite all that, the decision on what to prescribe in the end rests, rightly, with clinicians. We cannot and should not legislate to tie clinicians’ hands. Rightly, it is up to clinicians to decide what to use for their patients.

I want to submit to the House and to my hon. Friend that the challenge does not relate to passing legislation to require the MHRA to license the new use of an existing drug, because the lack of a licence is not the restraining factor. In this landscape, the restraining factor is the lack of information for clinicians about off-label use. We need to encourage greater off-label use through NICE, and to have a culture within our health system that actively supports it. In a moment, I will talk about what we are doing and might do to encourage that.

I want to pick up the confusion that may exist about the difference between off-patent and off-label drugs. A drug is off-patent when its patent protection has expired, which means that anyone can produce an identical drug at their own cost. A drug is off-label when it can be used for a new indication for which it was not originally intended. However, clinicians are perfectly able to use drugs for off-label purposes: we do not require the MHRA to license drugs for such a reason, and many drugs are already used in that way.

Let me assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that, as the new Minister for life science, I have responsibility for the National Institute for Health Research, which underpins clinical research in the NHS with £1 billion a year. It looks not just at new drugs, although we are very good at that, but at the whole pharmacopeia and how existing medicines are used, and provides research on side effects, efficacy and outcomes for the MHRA and NICE.

We have created a new department at the heart of the Government to tackle precisely the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I have been in post for only 100 days, but I want to talk about what we are doing to try to accelerate access for patients to new medicines, and to existing medicines with novel indications. I am sure that he is delighted to know that, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) reminded the House, my principal mission is to accelerate access to new drugs, including to new uses for existing drugs, for the benefit of NHS patients.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North was kind enough to refer to the Government’s commitment to the cancer drugs fund. He rightly identified that our real commitment is to ensure that if patients suffer because of NICE recommendations in relation to particularly expensive drugs, additional money is made available to prevent that from happening. The problem is one of health economics and NICE appraisals, rather than of licensing by the MHRA.

My hon. Friend made a very eloquent case, which I support, for the use of off-label drugs. We disagree not on the aim of promoting off-label use, but merely on the mechanism for doing so. As the Minister with responsibility for NICE, I am delighted to assure him and the House that we already have the power to instruct NICE to undertake technology appraisals. I hope that what I will say in a moment about how we intend to use that power and about the work we are doing on a series of ways to accelerate access to new drugs will reassure him that, far from our having any sense of complacency, we are bending our backs to consider every avenue in order to find value within the current pharmacopeia and to support clinicians actively embracing innovative uses of drugs.

It is for that reason that we have decided—controversially in some quarters—to support Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill, which is in the House of Lords. It seeks to contribute to this landscape by making it clear in statute that clinicians have the freedom, and should be supported in using the freedom, to embrace innovative uses of both existing and new drugs in the treatment of cancer. His Bill is about making very clear that those freedoms exist, and that clinicians have a duty, under their Hippocratic oath, to explore every innovative opportunity that there is a good clinical basis for believing will be safe and to the benefit of their patients.

The truth is that the problem is as much cultural as legislative. That is the principal reason why the Government are not able to support this Bill, but very much support its aims. I want to say something about what we propose to do to achieve the progress that we all want more quickly and effectively.

So that there is no doubt, let me say that our position is basically that the Bill is not needed. Anyone can apply for a licence for a medicine, and doctors can already prescribe medicines for uses outside their licence, where that is in the best interests of their patients. Doctors do so every day: when they make such a judgment, it is safe, legal and right for them to do so if they feel that they have a basis for doing so.

The truth is that licensing gets a medicine licensed; it does not get it into clinical practice. Whether clinicians use the medicine is driven by NICE guidance, and doctors ultimately decide what is best for their patients. That is why pharmaceutical companies invest so heavily in promoting their products. In turn, NICE exists, as an independent source of advice in the NHS, to provide our clinicians with independent, world-leading advice on the cost-effectiveness and the clinical cost-benefits of new drugs.

If we want to accelerate the uptake of innovative medicines, I suggest that we focus our efforts on NICE guidance and on supporting our medical profession to adopt innovation. Our concern is that the Bill may, completely inadvertently, impede progress on that by making doctors feel that they should not use medicines except for their licensed indications, which is the opposite of the message that we want to send. I understand that that is not the intention of the Bill, but we believe that it might be an inadvertent side effect.

What are we doing? The Government believe that the real issue involves better informing and enabling clinicians to embrace new indications, not dealing with a supposed problem of licensing. We are taking steps with NHS England and NICE to support local drugs and therapeutics networks, and improve how they pick up new evidence and translate it into clinical practice. Indeed, one role of the NIHR is to gather data—that word again—on which drugs are working and on outcomes across the system, and to feed such information back into guidance that is continually updated.

We are also working with hospitals and GPs to support them to work together on delegated prescribing, and to consider how they can change clinical pathways to reflect the very latest evidence across the system. The truth is that we need more evidence about what is working, and we are now gathering that evidence through the NICE associates network and our contacts with local clinicians.

As I have explained to my hon. Friend in our meetings and conversations, we will set up a round-table discussion in the new year, alongside NHS England and NICE, to bring everyone together, review the evidence and agree a strategy and a timetable for action. I am more than happy to extend an invitation to him and those supporting his Bill, as well as Association of Medical Research Charities, to engage actively in that process and to help us to develop a strategy for achieving what we all want, which is the greater use of off-label medicines in areas where the evidence suggests that they can deliver patient benefit.

I can go further and confirm that that is part of a major piece of work that I am leading on how we can and should reissue and revise our guidance to NICE and the MHRA—and review our ambitions as a country in this 21st-century landscape—to make Britain genuinely the best model of patient-centred research. Through the NIHR and our NHS infrastructure, we want to be the best place in the world for people to come to and develop new medicines, or indeed new uses for existing medicines. We want specialist tertiary research hospitals with cohorts of data, to develop new models of commissioning through evaluation, and evaluation through commissioning—two sides of the same coin—so that we can get drugs to patients far quicker than under the traditional model of 10 to 15 years and the £1 billion drug development.

There are undoubted benefits to the use of off-label drugs where there is evidence about their safety, efficacy and side effects. Guidance from the MHRA and the GMC is clear that there is a hierarchy in the use of medicines. In treating patients, clinicians must first consider using a licensed medicine within its licensed indication. If that will not meet the patient’s needs, clinicians can consider a licensed medicine outside its licensed indication. Only if that is not suitable should they consider a medicine that is not licensed at all. A great many medicines can offer benefits to patients when prescribed outside their licensed indications—my hon. Friend has already mentioned tamoxifen and raloxifene for the prevention of familial breast cancer.

My hon. Friend also rightly identified that there can be delays and barriers to using off-patent drugs for new indications. The reasons for that are complex—if only they were so simple that we could solve them with one private Member’s Bill—and in part relate to reluctance by some clinicians to prescribe drugs for conditions for which they are not licensed. There are also issues about the system’s ability to pick up emerging evidence and translate it into new guidance and clinical practice, and about how hospital specialists and GPs can work together to achieve that, by adapting pathways where needed.

What the Bill seeks is already allowed. That is the key reason why, despite agreeing with the Bill’s aim that patients should have access to appropriate drugs, the Government are unable to support it. Medicines are already prescribed legally, safely and appropriately outside their licence indications to large numbers of NHS patients, both in hospitals and in general practice. No funding, legal or regulatory barriers in the system prevent patients from being prescribed a clinically necessary medicine that is not licensed for the treatment indicated. Indeed, doctors regularly prescribe drugs outside their licensed indications. For example, many medicines prescribed to children are unlicensed for paediatric use because historically they have not been formally trialled in children. Two key conditions must be met in such prescribing. First, the clinician must be satisfied that the unlicensed indication meets the clinical needs of the patient and that no suitable licensed alternative is available. Secondly, he or she must explain to the patient that the drug is not licensed, so that they are clear about that.

Evidence suggests that patients trust their clinicians, and that those who are suffering actively embrace research medicine and are keen to be made aware of available drugs that may be not have been originally licensed for that purpose, as long as there is good evidence for it and the clinician supports its use. That position is well established and supported explicitly in guidance to prescribers by the General Medical Council and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Therefore, if a doctor chooses not to prescribe a medicine off label where one is indicated for the patient, that is unlikely to be simply because of the medicine’s licensing status. If a clinician believes that the lack of a licence prevents them from prescribing a drug, that is a different issue to which I will return in a moment.

Under the law regulating medicines, anyone can apply for a licence for a new use for an existing out-of-patent medicine. The Bill seeks to place that responsibility on the Health Secretary, so that he either takes steps to secure licences for off-patent drugs and new indications, or appoints a body to do so. In truth, licensing gets a medicine licensed, but it does not do what we want, which is get it into clinical practice. That requires clinicians to use and prescribe drugs, which is why we have NICE guidance.

The Department of Health holds a small number of licences for anthrax vaccine in the case of national emergency, but the Government rightly view that very much as an exception. Our concern is that if the Secretary of State were to become a routine applicant, or instructed someone else to do that on his or her behalf, they might be open to accusations of interfering in the market and a conflict of interest. There might even be a case for claiming a conflict of interest between the Secretary of State’s role as an applicant competing in the medicines market, and their statutory role as overseer of the system. Ultimately, we worry that that could compromise the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the UK medicines licensing system, were they to become a regular applicant. The idea of a body set up by the Secretary of State to apply for licences does not seem proportionate to the scale or nature of the challenge. If the issues under consideration will not be resolved simply by granting more licences—I do not think they will—there is no need for such new bureaucracy.

We believe that the provisions on NICE in the Bill are unnecessary. The fact that NICE has recommended the unlicensed use of tamoxifen and raloxifene in its clinical guidance should reassure hon. Members on that point, and I stress that we are actively discussing that matter with NICE and wish to promote it. I know my hon. Friend is concerned about the level of uptake of those drugs, despite NICE’s approval, and by focusing on the NICE appraisal process and guidance with an associated legal funding requirement, the Bill seeks to remove a perceived funding barrier to the implementation of off-label drugs that are proven to be clinically and economically effective. However, we believe that in practice it is unlikely that drug costs will be the key factor determining prescribing behaviour, when we are talking about generic drugs that in many cases will cost a few pence a day.

The framing of NICE’s clinical guidelines reflects the strength of the underpinning evidence. For example, where evidence strongly supports the use of intervention, NICE often states that that should be offered to patients. On the other hand, where the evidence of benefit is less strong, NICE typically states that intervention should merely be “considered”. It is entirely appropriate that the uptake of NICE’s recommendations reflects the strength of the evidence base. For the two drugs mentioned by my hon. Friend and me, NICE concluded that the evidence strongly supports their use for women at high risk of breast cancer, but was less strong for women at moderate risk. As such, its recommendations are worded differently, depending on a woman’s risk levels. Specifically, and importantly, NICE states that the drugs should be “offered” to women at high risk, and “considered” for women at moderate risk.

The Bill would require the Secretary of State to ask NICE to appraise certain new indications for off-patent drugs, whether licensed or unlicensed, rather than issue any form of guidance. Again, the Government believe that that is unnecessary, as there is currently no legislative barrier to Ministers asking NICE to appraise drugs outside their licensed indication. We tend to do so only exceptionally where there is clear evidence that that is the right course of action—an example would be drugs used to prevent transplant rejection in children. More frequently, NICE looks at the off-label use of drugs in the context of its clinical guidelines across the whole care pathway. Guidelines are generally considered a more appropriate vehicle for guidance on off-label indications, as they can set use more clearly in context. The question of mandated funding is unlikely to be critical if the drugs concerned are older or lower cost generics. NICE recognises the primacy of the medicines regulator in matters of safety and efficacy, and liaises with the MHRA in developing any clinical guidance recommendations relating to off-label use.

Let me explain why I am concerned that supporting the Bill could be counter-productive. That is not my hon. Friend’s purpose or intent, but it is a possible accidental side effect. The Government are concerned that the Bill could lead to clinicians and patients being concerned that something is not right about the use of a medicine outside its licensed indication, and that clinicians may be deterred from prescribing a drug, and patients from taking it. As I have explained, off-label prescribing is safe, legal, and when it is the right clinical choice for the patient, that is the right thing for the clinician caring for them to do. Given the large amount of such prescribing that goes on in the NHS every day, seeking to license every drug for every indication or each potential combination would be a gargantuan task. In many cases, the formal evidence base may not exist in a form that would support a licensing application.

Access to medicines that are important to patient care could be impeded because we worry that we would be seen to have set a new higher threshold for their use. That is precisely the opposite of what the Bill is seeking to achieve. We are, however, keen to take proportionate action to investigate whether non-legislative improvements can be made to support the use of appropriate medicines and benefit NHS patients. I was struck by the opinion and evidence that has been presented on access to medicines, such as the potential issues in transferring care from a specialist to a GP.

I might add that such issues are in no way unique to unlicensed medicines’ use. There are areas where there is far too much variation in the use of licensed NICE-appraised medicines. We are working hard with the NHS to address that, but there is no single magic bullet.

[Mr Chope]

I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying. Is he concerned that he has not persuaded a whole host of clinicians and medical charities of his case?

Antibiotic Resistance

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Jim Shannon, may I say that the winding-up speeches will start at 3.40 pm? Three hon. Members wish to make a contribution, and I hope that can be borne in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I have already noted my hon. Friend’s concern about that, and I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues in DEFRA and ask them to give a detailed response. Although I had noted it as an area of concern, as I say, we work very closely together on this issue, which is why the UK, I think uniquely, sent two Ministers—one from agriculture and one from human health—to conference in The Hague.

To go back to GPs, we need to get to the bottom of why we have such variation around the country and why there is so much inappropriate use. That work is going on. There are some initiatives to support the optimisation of prescribing—essentially trying to give doctors more tools to enhance their professional skills. One of those is called TARGET—Treat Antibiotics Responsibly, Guidance, Education, Tools—and is being promoted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Work is under way to develop this area and include it in health care training curricula. We have also developed new antibiotic prescribing measures for both primary and secondary care to try and help drive down that variability.

I think we can do more as MPs—all of us, in all our routine conversations with health and wellbeing boards, GPs and clinical commissioning groups, and with our local trust chief executives. This should be a standard question on our agenda for those meetings. That would really help, because I know, as a Government Minister, and I think we all know as MPs, that when we are aware that someone is going to ask us a tough question, we go away and start thinking about whether we have a good answer, so there is a lot more that we can all do to drive it at that routine level. There is only so much that the Government nationally can do to influence local GPs.

I want to reassure Members, however, that European antibiotic awareness day is on 18 November, and it would be a great moment for all of us to talk to our local health care professionals. I would be delighted if hon. Members here today, who are so interested in the subject, would work with me in putting together something in writing to all colleagues, with great questions to ask their local health care system. I would be delighted to do that and I can facilitate it. It would include posters for GPs’ surgeries as well as encouraging the public and professionals to become antibiotic guardians and to make pledges to undertake individual action in our effort to preserve antibiotics. Some members of the public are beginning to understand the scale of the challenge, but we are certainly not there yet, and I think Parliament has a role in trying to make that clear.

As a result of the work to date in the first year of the Government’s strategy, we have significantly better data and information, which we can use to inform the development of effective interventions. We have begun to define the scale of the problem much more, and I have outlined the action that we are trying to take in an international context to make sure that the spread of AMR is taken seriously across the world.

As I have mentioned, I will report all the points made in today’s debate both to the chief medical officer and to our cross-party high-level steering group to ensure that we have picked them up in the imminent publication. If there are any points that are not picked up, I will come back to hon. Members on them individually, but I want to reassure the House on the matter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for calling this debate and, indeed, the House for such a well-attended and thoughtful discussion. Everything we can do in this House to highlight the scale of the problem and the urgency of tackling it is very welcome, and I thank all hon. Members for their contribution today.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

We now move on to a short debate on connectivity to Leeds Bradford international airport. I call Stuart Andrew.

Pancreatic Cancer

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

I absolutely agree that the need is to find the tests and to have the wherewithal to allow them to take place.

I want to ask the Minister a few specific questions that she may pick up on in her response. Will the Government put in place pilots across the UK to experiment with direct GP referrals for CT scans to see how that might work and what impact it has on what actually happens—the positives and the negatives—so that we can learn from the experience? What actions can she take to boost awareness of pancreatic cancer signs and symptoms among GPs, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) referred earlier? Will the Department of Health consider pump-priming research into more recalcitrant cancers, such as pancreatic cancer, with ring-fenced grants where sustainable research has yet to be reached? As pancreatic cancer survival rates remain stubbornly low, will the Minister consider running specific awareness campaigns for the public through appropriate media?

The petition and this debate will have helped to raise pancreatic cancer up everyone’s agenda. I pay tribute to how Julie Hesmondhalgh—Hayley Cropper in “Coronation Street”—has helped to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer. I understand that she has been nominated for the best soap actress award at the TV Choice awards tonight. We wish her luck with that, because it will move pancreatic cancer yet further up the agenda. It is good to have her here today as part of the campaign. Julie points out:

“What the Coronation Street storyline did for pancreatic cancer awareness is phenomenal, but much more attention and funding is required. I worked with Maggie, along with many motivated people affected by pancreatic cancer and the charities Pancreatic Cancer Action and Pancreatic Cancer UK, to push the petition to the 100,000 signature milestone. This cancer desperately needs to be in the spotlight.”

She is absolutely right. The spotlight shines on it today. We need to seize this opportunity, this moment, this petition, this debate to up our game. Another 40 years cannot pass by without change. We need to set our stall out to make the same progress that we have made in prostate, breast and bowel cancer in the past 40 years for pancreatic cancer in the next 40 years. Nothing less is satisfactory. It is, as our parliamentary inquiry says, time to change the story.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call—[Applause.] Order. It is not customary for us to applaud. We keep quiet and listen. I am sure that the mere presence of so many people in the Public Gallery is an indication of the strength of feeling on this important issue. I call Eric Ollerenshaw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Mr Morris, let me just say that two other hon. Members wish to speak after him. The latest time for starting the winding-up speeches should be 7 o’clock, which would give us half an hour for those two speeches. If we can have a bit longer, so be it, but if we can fit three speakers into the remaining time for Back Benchers, that would be helpful.

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sir Cyril’s report makes a brief reference to the normalisation issue and I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to read that. Of course, the Government have moved to ban the selling of e-cigarettes to under-18s—a move that was supported by the e-cigarette industry for the most part.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What evidence is there that young people do not access illegal drugs as much because they are sold in plain packages?

[Jane Ellison]

I refer my hon. Friend to Sir Cyril’s report, where he will find 30-odd pages of extremely well-argued, authoritative comment by someone who has looked very deeply and widely at the issues over the past few months.

Accident and Emergency Departments

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

As I recall, the risk register for that period found its way into the public domain. As for our publishing the risk register, we are following exactly the same policies as the hon. Gentleman’s Government followed in office. They refused to publish that register for the simple reason that officials need to be able to give Ministers frank advice in private if Ministers are to do their job properly. That is why we have not changed the policy.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Royal Bournemouth hospital accident and emergency department treats 70,000 patients a year. Will my right hon. Friend explain how it can possibly be in the interests of those patients for that department to be downgraded to a minor injuries unit?

[Mr Hunt]

The changes that my hon. Friend alludes to are locally driven and have not crossed my desk. I want to reassure him that if they do cross my desk, I would not approve them unless there was convincing evidence that that was in the interests of patients and there had been proper consultation.

Tobacco Packaging

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I do not agree on this matter. Of course, we have not made a decision; that is the whole point. We are waiting to see the evidence as it emerges from Australia before we make a decision. I am more than happy to meet him again, as I have done in the past, but I can tell him: I am not going to meet those whose business is to trade and to manufacture tobacco. It is bad; it is horrible stuff. It kills people. It does great damage to people’s health.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her indecision. I also draw to her attention the fact that there does not seem to be any evidence that the sale and availability of illegal drugs in plain packages has reduced their attractiveness to young people.

[Anna Soubry]

I could speak for a very long time about illegal drugs and how we make them less attractive to young people. We know, for sure, that we need a subtle mixture of different measures that persuade young people not to take substances that are harmful to them. I am more than happy to have that conversation with my hon. Friend.

Health and Social Care

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

I would like to talk on two issues that, although not included in the Queen’s Speech, will come before the House in this Session, one of which needs to be addressed with some urgency.

In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain’s automatic blanket ban on the right of prisoners to exercise their vote was incompatible with the convention on human rights, of which we are a signatory. Almost eight years on, the United Kingdom has still not acted on that ruling and time is running short. The Government must submit their response to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers by 30 September. We have less than five months to prepare and present a formula that will be not only satisfactory to the Committee, but acceptable to Parliament and credible in the eyes of the British public.

I would like to state from the outset that I disagree with the ECHR ruling. I believe that the current ban on prisoner voting, which was ruled on and reinforced by successive Parliaments, is a proper and proportionate response following conviction and imprisonment, and I spoke and voted accordingly when the House last debated this matter. I repeat that to my mind the right to vote is not an intrinsic right, but a civic duty reserved for responsible citizens. However, we cannot talk of individual duty and responsibility in the eyes of the law while shirking our national obligations to uphold the international rule of law, one of the basic tenets of British foreign policy. Here is the troubling paradox: if, as the old maxim goes, no man is above the law, surely no country is either. I welcome the fact that this Government, unlike their predecessors, have recognised this responsibility, and I am pleased that the draft Bill on prisoner voting has been presented and that a Joint Committee will consider its options, but I am concerned that matters are progressing slowly against a swiftly approaching deadline and that we are not making a strong enough case for a pragmatic solution.

If the Government choose to maintain the status quo, we will stand in breach of the convention. If we ignore the judgment, we send the message that dissent is an acceptable state of play, and we would damage our reputation and lose the moral authority to demand compliance from those countries that persistently violate international law. Do we want our record on observing the rule of law compared with that of Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia? It would be neither right nor desirable, but a solution might be closer to home than we think.

Before the blanket ban came into force under the Representation of the People Act 1969, limited forms of prisoner voting were permissible and even practised. The Forfeiture Act 1870 disqualified convicted felons from voting, but only those serving a sentence exceeding 12 months. Felons serving less than 12 months could legally vote, and where it was practically and logistically possible, some indeed did. In the 1950 general election, for example, postal ballots were returned from prisoners in jails across the country.

There is more. When the Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, the concomitant disqualification on prisoner voting came temporarily to an end. In fact, all prisoners could vote. In effect, these prisoners had the right to vote, and it might surprise people that this was not an unintended consequence of the legislation, but a conscious decision based on a recommendation by a law review committee that the practice of prisoner disfranchisement should not continue.

That policy continued until a ban was introduced in 1969 under the Representation of the People Act, but the point is that the issue was not historically set in stone—not under the Forfeiture Act and not when the United Kingdom signed the convention in 1950—so past precedents should lead the way. To this end, the Government’s proposals on minimum thresholds are worthy of consideration, as they reflect an approach that was deemed compatible with UK law, public opinion and the convention, but we need to step up the dialogue.

How, then, do we move forward? I believe that the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours is obsolete, but the classification of crimes into indictable and summary offences, which distinguishes between grades of crime, mode of trial and punishment available, continues to apply. Like the old felonies, the most serious indictable crimes are tried before a Crown court, and I believe that this distinction could be used as a building block for a sentence-based solution that recognises the gravity of an offence committed. This is a route that we should consider, and the United Kingdom now has an advantage: the European Court recently reaffirmed its commitment to allowing the UK greater flexibility in how we apply the ruling, providing an opportunity to develop a policy that reconciles both principle with pragmatism and which allows our past to pave the way forward.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend has made a constructive contribution, but would he accept that what he is saying is totally at odds with what the people of this country believe? They do not want prisoners to have the vote and they do not see why European judges should be bossing them around and telling them otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

If we are to learn the lessons of the Francis report and admit to our mistakes, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that, because we decided to protect the NHS budget, there are 8,000 more clinical staff in the NHS today, yet he still wants to cut the NHS budget from its current levels, as he confirmed only last December.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T3. In today’s edition of the Daily Express, the Prime Minister promises to prevent immigrants freeloading on our NHS. Words are one thing, but can the Secretary of State spell out exactly what actions will be taken to deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we intend to take some profound steps in this area, because we have a national health service, not an international health service. We have to ask whether it is appropriate for us to be giving free health care to short-term visitors, to students, to people on temporary visas. We will be saying more about that issue shortly.