NHS Risk Register

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that I understand precisely. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of not only George Eliot hospital but the whole health service in his constituency. I appreciate that.

I shall give a practical example. When I was at the Stobart centre meeting hundreds of general practitioners from across the north-west, those from St Helens said, “We’re really worried about Whiston hospital”—a PFI approved by the previous Secretary of State—“and we can’t deliver the service that we want to for our patients, because all the money will be eaten up by the PFI project at Whiston.” That is precisely why we are tackling the risks that we inherited from Labour.

The NHS also faces risks from Labour’s failed approach to public health. Under Labour, public health budgets were raided and alcohol-related admissions to accident and emergency departments, and levels of obesity and sexually transmitted infections, all rose sharply. I was staggered to hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about fragmentation of sexual health services at the last election. The last Conservative Government—I hope that my coalition colleagues will forgive me for a moment, because I am talking about the Conservative Government before the Labour Government—acted on sexual health, not least in relation to HIV. As a consequence, not only were HIV rates among the lowest anywhere in Europe but sexual infection rates fell for a decade. After the 1997 election the Labour party failed on sexual health, and sexual infection rates rose for a decade. Labour’s position has no basis. We had some of the highest HIV rates at the end of the previous Government’s term. It is outrageous. The Opposition have completely wiped out their recognition of what went wrong under the Labour Government, including on sexual health matters. That is why we are dealing with those risks.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will mention one more risk, and then give way to my hon. Friend.

There is one more risk: Labour’s IT programme—not a small risk, but a risk of £7.4 billion-worth of contracts, and a risk not just of money not being spent properly or being wasted, but of the opportunity cost to the NHS of not getting high-quality IT in place. This morning I had the pleasure of launching a “Maps and apps” event, showing how we are promoting the use of the latest technologies across the NHS, not on the basis of the Government saying, “Here’s the single app that everybody must use in the NHS: it’s a centralised system,” but by allowing literally hundreds of people—enterprising people from across the NHS and beyond—to bring in new technology applications for the benefit of patients and clinicians across the service.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Going back to the Labour PFI burden that we have been left with, can he confirm a figure that I heard recently, which is that the burden on the NHS budget amounts to about £3,000 a minute?

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. As I have said in the House before, every right hon. and hon. Member feels passionately about the NHS. We have legitimate disagreements about the best way forward for the national health service, but we all know that it is something that each and every one of our constituents, almost without exception, and each and every member of our families, cares about. We have all relied on our health service at one time or another. It is therefore understandable that debates about the future direction of the NHS should arouse the sort of passion articulated earlier today.

It is important in the debate to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, which has been repeated by other hon. Members—that as a result of the Health and Social Care Bill, the national health service will remain free, regardless of the ability to pay, and universally available to all citizens of this country. When we discuss improvements to the health service, it is outcomes that we need to focus on.

I believe that the biggest risk to the NHS—which, as the shadow Secretary of State has said, is one of this country’s most respected institutions—is allowing it to continue with inertia and carry on as it has done in the past. At best that is a sentimental and quaint way of looking at the future of our health service. At worst it is dishonest and dangerous for the future health care of each and every one of our constituents.

Certainly, the experience in my constituency shows that the health service desperately needs change, and that without it we risk the quality of care. In 2001 maternity services were removed from Crawley hospital, and in 2005 we lost our accident and emergency department. The risks that have been experienced since those events have increased immeasurably, but since we have started to move towards the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill we have seen considerable improvements. Waiting times have reduced for my constituents. Local GPs and clinicians very much support the provisions of the Bill and have already joined together in a GP commissioning consortium. The elected local authorities, which are a welcome addition to local health debates, are engaged, which is great for improving future health care provision and ensuring the involvement not only of patients and clinicians but of elected councillors. Only last week I was delighted to open a new digital mammography unit at Crawley hospital and a new day unit being expanded there, so already there are improvements.

In my concluding remarks I want to talk about the inconsistency we have heard from the Labour party on the release of the risk register. As we have heard, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the former Health Secretary, and his predecessor in that job, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), rejected making the risk register available on a total of three occasions. The argument that things are now different is just nonsense; the only thing that is different is that Labour are now in opposition. They are using precious time in this place to call for the release of a risk register that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has said, is now over a year old and no longer relevant, because we have moved on with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I call Hugh Bayley.

Midwife and Maternity Services

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to hold this debate on midwife and maternity services. It is particularly important because, as I speak, there is a baby boom in the UK. Last year, a baby was born every 40 seconds—the highest number in 20 years—and in certain areas of the country maternity units are under considerable pressure and midwives are working harder than ever. England has seen a 22% increase in the number of births, compared to Wales at 17%, Northern Ireland at 15%, and Scotland at 12%. The number of live births in England in 2010—the latest year for which figures are available—was well over two thirds of a million, representing an increase of 22% since 2001.

The Royal College of Midwives recently published its “State of Maternity Services” report, and I was pleased to be at its launch in Westminster Hall. The report looks at a number of indicators of the pressures on maternity care and the resources available to cope, and for the first time it does so for all four nations of the Union. The report finds that a significant increase in the number of births in each of the UK’s constituent parts and a trend towards older mothers are increasing the pressures on maternity services significantly. The extra work load placed on midwives by more older women giving birth has been exacerbated by an increased complexity in their work load.

The number of births to women aged 40 or over rose by more than 70% between 2001 and 2010—a level not seen since 1948. In England that has led to a substantial deficit in the work force needed to provide a safe level of care to women and their babies. Furthermore, the existing midwifery work force in England is ageing. We can therefore anticipate an even greater strain on services over the next 15 years, if the situation is not properly addressed. One region of England actually cut midwife numbers between 2001 and 2010. Between those years, the north-west experienced a 19% increase in the number of live births, but a reduced number of full-time equivalent midwives.

The only way to get large numbers of new midwives into the profession is through training student midwives, yet the record on student midwife numbers is patchy. In the 2005-06 academic year, for example, there was even a 16% cut in student midwife numbers, and it took five years for those numbers to climb back up to their 2004-05 level. With an ageing profession, a substantial and consistent rise in student midwife numbers is the only way of rectifying the enduring problem that there are too few midwives working in the NHS in England.

I very much welcome the increased number of midwives and trainee midwives introduced by the Government. That is fundamental. I also very much welcome the increase in NHS funding over each and every year of this Parliament, including the greater investment in maternity care as part of the solution. However, the financial limits resulting from the historically high debts that the previous Administration left us mean that innovative ways to address the work force shortages need to be considered.

I know that the Royal College of Midwives, for its part, is realistic about the financial challenges facing the NHS. The “State of Maternity Services” report recommends, for example, providing more midwife-led units and appropriately integrating maternity support workers as two ways to make better use of the limited financial resources available. The report also recommends at least maintaining, and in some regions increasing, the number of student midwives to ensure that more midwives are available to meet future needs.

Maternity services in England are approaching a critical point. London, along with many parts of the south and east, is particularly overstretched, with some maternity units currently having a midwife vacancy rate of over 20%. Maternity services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in better shape. According to the Royal College of Midwives, an average ratio of one midwife to 28 births is a safe level. At the moment the figures for the UK are as follows: in England there is one midwife for every 33 births, in Wales there is one for every 30 births, in Northern Ireland one for every 28 births, and in Scotland one for every 26 births. There are clear variations in care across the UK that need to be addressed. It is clear that with adequate midwife numbers to match the birth rate, mothers and babies receive a higher standard of care.

The situation in England is a concern, but it is certainly not hopeless. The midwifery shortage can be solved; it is simply a matter of policy will and using resources innovatively. For example, giving expectant mothers real choice when deciding where to give birth could alleviate the shortage problem in England. In essence, a mother has three main choices when choosing the location of birth: a midwife-led unit, a consultant-led unit or at home. Most women choose a local hospital, usually for convenience and because of the perception of safety and security. Encouraging more births at midwife-led units, however, would help with NHS work force planning. Births at home or in midwife-led units require fewer interventions and are less demanding on midwife time. According to calculations, for every 10,000 births moved from a consultant-led to a midwife-led unit or to the home, the required midwifery work force would be reduced by the equivalent of 71 full-time midwives.

There are significant variations in home birth take-up, which suggests that the message of choice is not getting through to all mothers. For example, in Somerset 11.4% of births are at home. At the other end of the scale, however, in Wansbeck, just 0.1% of births are at home. By encouraging real choice we could enable mothers across the country to receive higher levels of care during and after their pregnancy.

Choice of location of birth—that is, of course, a specific coalition policy set out in the NHS White Paper—is far too important to be denied to mothers, particularly when it is readily available in other parts of the country. According to the Office for National Statistics the percentage of home births decreased to 2.5% in 2010 compared with 2.7% the previous year.

Research by Oxford University’s national perinatal epidemiology unit has given further weight to the evidence that suggests women at a low risk of complications should be given full and frank options when it comes to choosing where to give birth. The general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, Professor Cathy Warwick, welcomed the research, saying:

“This ground-breaking research makes a very important contribution to the evidence base for women and health professionals about the safety of childbirth planned in different settings for women at a low risk of complications. The RCM hopes that its findings will be widely used and will help health professionals support women to make informed choices about their options when considering where to give birth. It should also influence the planning of high-quality maternity services across the UK.”

Maternity support workers who have been adequately trained, and are appropriately supervised and suitably deployed, can also provide a significant reduction of the pressure on midwife time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. He will be aware that some 70% of midwives oversee the birth of a child without a doctor’s support. He has not mentioned that it can cost up to £45,000 to train a midwife. Some of our midwives, certainly some from Northern Ireland, are going to Australia to gain experience. Does the hon. Gentleman see some way of retaining midwives here in England, where, as he has said, there seems to be a shortage? Might there not be some way for the regions to help each other in this respect?

[Henry Smith]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which reinforces my view that there must be proper investment—the Government are already making a good start—to ensure that student midwives learn how to help mothers give birth in a safe environment so that in most cases there are no complications. It should be emphasised that consultant-led maternity units, although obviously vital, do not represent the full picture, and that midwife-led units play an important role in increasing capacity. Midwife training in each part of the United Kingdom should be at least maintained, and in some regions increased. It is necessary to maintain the numbers who begin training to ensure that an adequate supply emerges at the other end, and I repeat my commendation of the Government in that regard.

Let me end by referring to a matter related to my constituency. Yesterday evening, during the Opposition day debate on the NHS, I mentioned that 10 years ago, in 2001, the maternity unit at Crawley hospital had regrettably been closed and moved nearly 10 miles up the road to East Surrey hospital. The move has created extra pressure at that hospital, and mothers and their families have a more difficult journey to attend the unit at for check-ups and for births.

I am personally very grateful to East Surrey hospital. It is where my children were born. My daughter Georgia was born there in 2003, my son Isaac was born there in 2006, and I feel that it is important also to mention that my son Ethan was stillborn there in 2005. The care that the hospital provided for us was second to none. Nevertheless, I think it important for mothers and families to have access to midwife-led services that are closer to their communities. It is certainly one of my hopes and desires that we may be able to establish a midwife-led unit for Crawley—and, indeed, many more such units throughout the country.

NHS (Private Sector)

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Just hang on and listen. Nothing has been done to the Bill to bring together the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s promises that there would be no privatisation. There has been no substantial change since the pause.

Let me come directly to whether the Bill represents a privatisation of the kind that we saw in the 1980s. In doing so, I shall refer to a report from the King’s Fund, which I recommend to the hon. Lady. The Government have failed to introduce measures that they promised, months after the pause, so it is still considered appropriate for a body as respected as the King’s Fund to make a fairly shocking comparison that, indeed, the Bill is similar to the privatisations of the Thatcher Government. The report says:

“The Government’s proposals draw heavily on the regulatory framework developed in telecoms and utilities regulators …Interestingly, Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley’s own ideas for the reform of the NHS, developed while in opposition, were born out of his experience of the privatisation and regulation of utilities in the mid-1980s when he was Principal Private Secretary to Norman Tebbit.”

There we—[Interruption.] Okay, there we have it. That is the view of the King’s Fund—this is a privatisation along the lines of those we saw in the 1980s.

To back up that point, the King’s Fund quotes from a speech that the Secretary of State gave in 2005 to the NHS Confederation. He said this of the 1980s privatisations:

“The combination of the introduction of competition with a strong independent regulator delivered immense consumer value and economic benefits.”

There are two problems with that statement. First, there are real questions about whether gas, electricity, water and rail customers feel that they have had immense value. Secondly, it is troubling that the Secretary of State for Health, of all people, considers the delivery of health care directly comparable to telecoms and utilities.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in 2007 that he celebrated the role of the private sector in the NHS?

[Andy Burnham]

This is getting a little tedious. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion, which indeed does the very same thing? It recognises the fact that there is

“an important role for the private sector”

in the delivery of good NHS care and celebrates the role that it played in helping us to deliver the lowest ever NHS waiting times. Before intervening in future debates, he might like to read the motion that the House is considering.

Let me quote the Secretary of State’s interesting 2005 speech to the NHS Confederation, which set out the essential ingredients that we now see in his Health and Social Care Bill. His plan was to

“maximise competition, transfer risk to the private sector…appoint a strong, pro-competitive regulator…set out clearly the standards which have to be met and how operators will be held accountable for them…be clear about how and by whom universal service obligations are to be met…ensure high quality information for customers”

and have

“more customers rather than fewer.”

That is, do not have a few monopolistic health authority purchasers. The Secretary of State is nodding in assent that that is, essentially, his Health and Social Care Bill. This is, of course, the basic framework that the House of Lords is considering, despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s claim to have rejected

“the free market dogma that can fragment the NHS.”

A phrase leaps out of that 2005 speech that, in the light of recent events, needs to be challenged. It is

“transfer risk to the private sector”.

While acceptable in theory, I wonder whether recent experience with the private cosmetic surgery industry has led the Secretary of State to reconsider whether and how, in the health context, that can be delivered in practice. In an NHS based on commercial contracts, would there not always be arguments about legal liability when things went wrong? Would it not be much harder to control quality and costs in such a way, rather than through the current planned and managed NHS system that we have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

There will not be any transfer of responsibility for services from the NHS to the private sector; the NHS will continue to be responsible. The balance in the NHS—[Interruption.] No, I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He is trying to interpret “privatisation” as every service currently provided by an NHS provider being provided by an NHS provider in the future, but whether services are provided by the NHS or by a private enterprise, a social enterprise or a charity will be determined by patients choosing who is the best-quality provider. So that is not privatisation; the service remains free, and it remains an NHS service. It is guaranteed to patients in exactly the same way, and there is no presumption in the legislation—in fact, it excludes any presumption—in favour of a private sector provider as against an NHS provider.

The right hon. Gentleman is in absolutely no position to make any criticism of that, because he served in a Government who introduced independent sector treatment centres. They went through the process of giving the private sector contracts that were not available to the NHS, with an 11% higher price on average and a guarantee that they would be paid even if they did not necessarily provide the treatment. The net result was £297 million spent on operations that never took place, and the private sector walked away with that money, so he is in absolutely no position to make any criticism, because we are going to exclude such practices. The contracts that the Labour party gave to the private sector when he was a Minister are exactly the contracts that our legislation will exclude.

[Henry Smith]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the previous Administration, private sector involvement in the NHS went up by 78%?

[Mr Lansley]

Interestingly, under the so-called extended choice network that the Labour Government introduced, the number of elective operations conducted in the private sector went from, I think, 16,000 in 2005-06 to 208,000 in 2009-10—an enormous increase. From the right hon. Gentleman’s point of view, it was marginal capacity that did not really matter, but the point is that patients said that they thought it provided good quality care. In a Care Quality Commission survey, some 96% of NHS patients using independent facilities said that the elective surgery they received was “excellent” or “very good”. The figure for NHS facilities was 79%. On the NHS Choices website, nine of the top 20 highest-rated NHS-funded providers were run by the independent sector; there were no independent-sector hospitals in the bottom 20. The general proposition is that the private sector is worse in the NHS, but there is no evidence to support that.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Royal College of Surgeons conducted a study of the quality of care, and its general conclusion was that the quality of clinical care offered to NHS patients by private sector providers was as good as the care offered by the NHS. So what is his point? He used the private sector, patients used the private sector and patients were happy. What is his point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had three reasons for writing to Mr Speaker requesting to take part in this debate. The first is that I genuinely wanted to hear, in this Opposition day debate on the NHS, what the Opposition’s plans really are for the future of our health service. The second reason is that I want to describe the experience that my constituents went through, over 13 years of a Labour Administration. Finally, I want to talk about how already, in anticipation of the Health and Social Care Bill becoming law, clinicians in Crawley are working to deliver a better national health service.

I do not mind telling the House that I am forgoing an invitation to a dinner this evening, so great was my desire to hear exactly the official Opposition’s view on the NHS. What I have heard this evening is incredible—or, so that I am not misunderstood, not credible. It is amazing that a party that massively increased the PFI programme during its tenure, spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in an inefficient way through the national health service, should come to the House this evening and try to claim that what we are trying to achieve in the Health and Social Care Bill will somehow privatise the national health service. Let us be quite clear: this Government are committed to providing a national health service that is available regardless of the ability to pay. The difference, I contend, between Government Members and Opposition Members is that they are ruled by some sort of centralist dogma that says that if the Department of Health has not willed it, it cannot happen, whereas the Government are trying to introduce a pragmatic approach, in which outcomes are far more important than the strict processes that a dogmatic system for delivering health care should produce.

I said that I wanted briefly to mention the experience of the NHS during what we are often led to believe were the golden years of the health service, under the previous Government. Those years were not so golden for my constituents, because in 2001—a decade ago—we regrettably saw the downgrading of maternity services at Crawley hospital. Crawley is a growing town; indeed, its motto is, “I grow and I rejoice”. However, there was not much rejoicing when its maternity services were taken away and transferred almost 10 miles up the road to East Surrey hospital, where there is now increased pressure on maternity services, as it is having to cope with the increased number of people from not only east Surrey, but the north-east of West Sussex.

To add insult to injury, in 2005 Crawley hospital saw its accident and emergency department closed. Again, it was moved miles up the road to East Surrey hospital, even though there is little public transport between that hospital and Crawley—a growing and ageing town, with increasing health needs and major transportation links, not least the nation’s second biggest airport, London Gatwick—and single-carriageway roads. At best, that is inconvenient for patients and for families wishing to visit them in hospital; at worst, it is potentially fatal. That is my constituents’ experience.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is making a defence of A and E and maternity services, but does he not recognise that, despite the promises made by the current Secretary of State during the election campaign, many hospitals have, for clinical reasons, done the very same thing? They include Salford Royal, which has lost its maternity services, and others in the north-west, even though the Secretary of State promised that that would not happen to them. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that those things are going on now?

[Henry Smith]

The principal reason behind the closure of the accident and emergency unit at my local hospital was the European working time directive, which had a massive impact across the national health service. The NHS as an institution will of course evolve, the better to serve patients up and down the country. That is absolutely right.

That brings me to the third point that I wanted to make: the opportunity that the Health and Social Care Bill will provide for greater localisation in decision making on the future of health care services. I am delighted that the clinicians and GPs in Crawley have already come together to form a GP commissioning body, which is very ably chaired by Dr Amit Bhargava. It is brimming with ideas for innovative ways in which patients can be provided with much better services. For the first time in many years, decisions about the future of health care in Crawley are being made by Crawley clinicians, in conjunction with their patients and in the light of their patients’ needs. The group is working in conjunction with the local authorities—West Sussex county council and Crawley borough council—which, incidentally, will be providing oversight of some of the private sector contracts in the national health service, as envisaged in the Bill. The provision of that democratic oversight for the first time will achieve a localisation of services that is more relevant to the needs of the local communities, as well as a far greater degree of oversight.

I reject the motion before us, and I welcome the Health and Social Care Bill. It will be better for patients and better for democratic oversight. Ultimately, we should be talking about, and delivering, better outcomes for health care in this country, not remaining wedded to an outdated dogma which does not deliver services as efficiently as it could and should deliver them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned hard on this issue. I can assure him that I recently met a group of MPs, and constituents of theirs who are suffering from hepatitis. As he knows, there is a wide spectrum of illness associated with chronic hepatitis C infection. We are aware that people could be suffering financial hardship as a result, and I would urge them to apply to the Caxton Foundation. The Department’s expert advisory group on hepatitis C will continue to keep the evidence under review.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T7. In a number of surgeries in my constituency, and in many across the country, physicians’ assistants play a very important role in enhancing capacity. Can my hon. Friend say whether there are any plans in the Department of Health to allow physicians’ assistants to be able to prescribe medication?

National Health Service

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Ministers are shaking their heads, but I will read them the Treasury figures published in July this year, and let them tell me then that what I have just said is not true. The public expenditure statistical analyses from this year provide official confirmation of what I have just said. They show that in 2009-10 health spending was £102,751 million. That was in the last year of the Labour Government. In 2010-11, health spending was £101,985 million. There we have it in black and white—the first real-terms cut in health spending for 14 years. In fact, it is the first real-terms cut since the last year of the last Tory Government in 1996-97.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am interested to hear how the right hon. Gentleman is trying to manipulate those figures. How does he reconcile what he is saying with what his party’s Administration is doing in Wales, where the health service has been cut and hospital infections and waiting times have risen?

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman uses the word “manipulate”. May I say that I take great exception to that? I have read out the Treasury statistical analysis from this July. If he is telling me that I have misrepresented it, let him stand up again now and say so. If not, he should hold his peace. I remind him that his party’s Government delivered a much deeper cut to Wales than to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Labour Administration are now dealing with the consequences of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

For the avoidance of doubt, let me address directly what my hon. Friend has said. A moment ago I mentioned a photograph of the Secretary of State on a visit to Chase Farm hospital just days after the election, when he announced his so-called moratorium—although no one has yet seen any evidence of it. He is holding up a placard in that photograph that says, “HANDS OFF! Chase Farm A & E”, underneath which are the words: “I oppose any cutbacks to our A & E,” and on the bottom we can see his signature. How on earth he can square that with the letter that he recently exchanged with his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North, I do not know. I do not know how the Secretary of State can reconcile those two things in his mind or how he could look anyone in Enfield North in the eye, having promised them that he would save their accident and emergency department. It is quite scandalous. People across the country are discovering that the Prime Minister’s moratorium is utterly meaningless, as A and Es restrict opening hours and maternity wards close.

We now come to the third of the Prime Minister’s broken promises, on NHS reorganisation. Again, the coalition agreement could not have been clearer:

“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS”.

I have never understood how those in the coalition could possibly sign up to those words, when only weeks later they would bring forward a White Paper heralding the mother of all reorganisations, the biggest since 1948. I can see the cynical politics behind the Prime Minister’s first two pledges, but on this pledge at least he was right. A reorganisation is precisely the last thing that the NHS needs right now. I am clear: the abandonment of that pledge is the Prime Minister’s biggest mistake in office. If he ploughs on, he will ultimately pay a heavy price for it, because it is a catastrophic error of judgment to combine the biggest ever financial challenge in the NHS with the biggest ever reorganisation.

As Health Secretary, I was told by officials that rising to the financial challenge would require every ounce of our energy and focus. The NHS would need stability. Instead, this Government have picked up the pieces of the jigsaw and thrown them up in the air, distracting the service at the very moment it needed maximum focus. Grip has been lost; the NHS is drifting.

[Henry Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that our NHS needs greater efficiency and localism, and that this requires reorganisation?

[Andy Burnham]

I said just a moment ago that I was the one who put my name to the Nicholson challenge, because that money was going to help the NHS respond to the new demands placed on it at this difficult time, so the hon. Gentleman need not lecture me about efficiency. He needs to tell me how placing a moratorium on change in the NHS helps it to respond and deliver those efficiencies. That is the contradiction of his position, and he stood for election on that policy, as did others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will continue my introduction and give way in a moment.

I wish to recognise the contribution of the NHS staff, who are the source of great pride. They have done such a great job, and continue to do so, even in difficult circumstances, in delivering the very high levels of patient satisfaction reported in the recent surveys.

In November 2010, the Backbench Business Committee selected my application for a debate on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department of Health, the NHS and public health. So many of the issues that have been raised are implanted in my mind, not least the loss of the funding for a new hospital that would have served many of my constituents in the south of Easington. I am concerned about the particular reference that has been made to that and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or the Minister would deal with that in their closing remarks. A value-for-money assessment was made by both the Department of Health and the Treasury and it was found that the best way to take forward that proposal was with public funding, rather than through the private finance initiative route. The disingenuous position repeated by those on the Government Benches, including the charges laid against the Labour Opposition about our support for PFI, has been compounded. I remind right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches that in the case of the new hospital planned for my area we were directed to the PFI route, despite the criticism that has come from the Secretary of State and other Members on the Government Benches.

I am pleased that the motion focuses on the failed personal pledges of both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. A key promise was made to increase real-terms expenditure on the NHS, but it is another broken promise. It is probably the most fundamental one, as the NHS is such a beloved institution of the whole British public. Before the election, the Conservatives promised to protect the NHS and give it a real-terms budget increase year on year. The coalition document promised a 0.4% real-terms budget increase for the NHS over the spending review period.

I am sure that we all saw the expensive billboards before the election, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) referred. They showed the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, saying:

“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”

That was not really about rebranding the NHS; it was more an exercise in conning the British public. Whereas Labour gave a guarantee to protect the front line of the NHS, the Health Secretary, then the shadow Health Secretary, saw a cynical opportunity to give a guarantee on spending. We now know from the Treasury’s own figures that that guarantee was false: it is a promise that has been broken. It was a guarantee that went against all the Tory mantra. We are constantly told by the Conservative party that public service delivery is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it—in fact, we heard that today from the Prime Minister in relation to police numbers. However, the Tory promise was never about protecting the NHS; it was about protecting the Tory brand.

Even the Tories’ biggest backers realise that the promise to increase funding on the NHS was a con. The Secretary of State cited James Purnell a little earlier, so perhaps I might cite Fraser Nelson, who is not a well-known socialist—he writes for The Spectator and is a right-wing commentator. He says:

“It has become clear now that there was a cynical competition to dupe the British public into believing that if they voted Tory at the General Election, the NHS would be safe.”

After 13 years of unprecedented rises in the NHS budget under Labour, and efficiency measures such as those on procurement—

[Henry Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the 13 years under the previous Labour Government. I do not know what happened in his constituency, but my constituency lost accident and emergency provision, and we lost maternity provision. That was the direct consequence of Labour’s Department of Health.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I think we saw an unprecedented period of growth with the building of new hospitals and new facilities. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and what he is going through with the Chase Farm downgrading, because in my area the Hartlepool accident and emergency facility is also being downgraded to an urgent treatment centre. That is a cause of consternation among the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper]

Forgive me. I have a great propensity to do that. I believe passionately in the NHS and I take this all very personally. I apologise.

The Government’s policy will fundamentally damage the health service in terms of both the quality of care available to patients and the founding principles of the NHS. The more we debate Government health policy, the less the Secretary of State seems to be listening, whether to Opposition Members, medical professionals, patients, patient groups or constituents.

I might go further and say that I now believe the Secretary of State occupies a parallel universe—a universe where everyone wholeheartedly supports his policy and believes him when he says that there is real-terms growth in NHS spending, a universe where waiting times are not increasing, people are not being refused treatments, bed-blocking is not happening because of pressure on the social care system, a universe where he never discussed the issue of re-banding of nurses with the Royal College of Nursing.

Unfortunately, while the Secretary of State, ably supported by the Prime Minister, is off in that parallel universe, which we shall call delusional, the rest of us are left facing the terrifying reality of what the Government’s policy means to our constituents and to the national health service. We must disregard the rhetoric and the myth-making of the Conservative party as it seeks to demonstrate that it has changed when it comes to the NHS. Sadly for the health service, the Conservatives have not changed at all.

I have spoken repeatedly about the Prime Minister’s clear promises to the British people—one was that there would be no more pointless top-down reorganisation. He even said:

“When your family relies on the NHS all the time—day after day, night after night—you know how precious it is”.

How quickly those words were forgotten. Michael Portillo comments on the BBC’s “This Week” spoke volumes. He could not have made it clearer that the Government meant to misrepresent their position and mislead their voters. He said:

“They did not believe they could win if they told you what they were going to do.”

My fear is that their broken promises are leading us headlong into a broken NHS.

There is much I could say about how disgracefully the Government started to change NHS structures without the consent of the people or the House. Because of those broken promises, a failure to secure a clear mandate for the reforms from the British public, and an abject failure to secure support from the clinicians and the medical profession, we are left in the present mess. I hear time and again that the doctors, the nurses and the professionals are all behind the Government. Where are they? They are shouting loud and clear, “We’re not with you.”

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rosie Cooper]

I fell for that last time and did not get to the end of what I had to say.

I will not go on about the rest of the problems that I see with the Bill—the financial challenge, the fact that we are open to European competition regulation, or the fact that the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board believes the Bill is unintelligible. I believe the Bill has been driven forward as an ideological exercise, rather than by an ideological desire to improve the quality of health care available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think that it has been conventional over many years for the calculation of real terms in public accounting to use the GDP deflator. Given that it includes the prices of investment goods, Government services and exports and subtracts the price of UK imports, it gives a more appropriate overall measure of inflation.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the increase in the NHS West Sussex budget of £35 million this year, which, coupled with the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, means that we will have far greater patient choice in our local area?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I do indeed welcome that. We all know that last year, this year and in future years, increases in the NHS budget in real terms will not be the kind of real-terms increases we saw in the past, but they will be real-terms increases. What we are already seeing in the NHS—we saw it last year—is that with a 2.2% increase in cash spending, there is none the less an ability to sustain, and in many respects improve, performance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

Yes, I can tell the hon. Lady that it will be up to the SHA, the trust and officials at the Department—[Interruption.] The SHA is the strategic health authority in the north-west. It is for them to work together to produce a tripartite formal agreement—when agreed, it will be published for the local community to see—as the best way forward to seek solutions and to help trusts achieve foundation trust status. It is in their interest and the interest of patients to bring about improved, high-quality patient care.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

19. What steps he is taking to improve mental health services.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)?

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer to that earlier question. Will he explain more fully exactly how services for those with eating disorders can be enhanced, particularly in the Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust area?

[Paul Burstow]

Yes, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will update its guidance on eating disorders later this year. The plans already set out in the Health and Social Care Bill mean that eating disorders will be subject to specialised commissioning in future by the NHS Commissioning Board. We believe that, because of the consolidated expertise in matching needs, this will help to drive up standards and enhance quality and consistency across the country. In the hon. Gentleman’s own patch, the assessment service run by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust is certainly an impressive one.

NHS Reorganisation

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

One of the problems—we all know this, and the new Government will be faced with it in exactly the same way—is exactly how to measure productivity in the NHS. Given the complexity of what is provided for patients—and the requirement to put together packages of care to help people recover from serious illness and live independently is so complex—it is hard to do that. The NHS just is not like a commercial business, which is what this Government want to turn it into.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Let us consider something more quantifiable. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of more or less bureaucracy in the NHS?

[John Healey]

Let me send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Labour manifesto, because we set out exactly how we could make significant savings from the bureaucracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Health is undoubtedly one of the most important areas of public policy, and one that the British people care about deeply. We on the Opposition Benches are very proud of our record on the NHS. It was Labour who created the NHS in 1947, and Labour who saved it from Tory destruction in 1997. Under the Labour Government there was significant real growth in the resources going into health care. NHS expenditure increased by more than two thirds over 13 years, with real-terms growth averaging around 5.5% per annum. Those high rates of investment led to improvements in hospital waiting times, life expectancy and health outcomes.

It is all too easy to forget what the NHS was like under the previous Tory Government. People waited for years for treatment such as hip replacements, and it was common for patients to spend hours in the cold corridors of old hospitals built in the 19th century while waiting for beds to become available. We changed that by building new hospitals and employing more doctors and nurses.

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Smith]

I will give way once and no more, because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak.

[Henry Smith]

I am interested to hear the tale of life in the NHS before the Labour Government and now, because under Labour my constituents lost hospital provision, including accident and emergency and maternity services. That was the Labour experience in Crawley.

[Angela Smith]

All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I worked in the NHS as one of the so-called bureaucrats in the Tory ’80s, and I remember having a patient crying to me over the phone, begging me to admit him so that he could have his eye taken out, because the Tory NHS was not providing the beds or the theatre space for such operations. We changed that by investing in the NHS so that life chances for many people could be improved. There is no doubt that there are people alive today who would not be so had that investment not been made.

Before the election, the Tories promised to protect the NHS with real-terms increases in spending. Let us get one thing straight: the 0.1% per annum increase that the coalition Government said they would provide does not equate to real increases in spending, because since then inflation rates have gone through the roof. There is no real-terms increase in spending, so one has to ask why the Government want to divert a further £2 billion from tight budgets into a top-down, ideologically driven reorganisation, especially when the coalition agreement specifically stated that the Government would not do that.

Furthermore, it is a reorganisation that no one wants—and that includes the Lib Dems, as we saw with last week’s vote in the great city of Sheffield. Just this week the BMA voted against the proposals, and many other health professionals think that they are dangerous and ill thought through. Without the support of anybody, it seems, the Government are intent on forcing through

“the biggest…upheaval in the health service, probably since its inception.”

Those are not my words but the words of Chris Ham, the chief executive of the King’s Fund.

I have a fundamental disagreement with the Secretary of State’s view that competition and free markets will drive innovation in the NHS, and that profit will motivate performance. I do agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston Upon Hull (East) (Karl Turner), when he says that the introduction of these reforms risks removing the N from NHS. No longer will we have a national service; instead, the system will be fragmented and the postcode lottery of service will become more and more prevalent.

The notion of “any willing provider” means that many NHS hospitals will be at a disadvantage compared with private providers, which will not have to provide a comprehensive service for complex problems. “Fine,” some might say, “if that brings costs down”—but what happens when hospitals and other treatment centres become insolvent and have to close down, leaving many areas of the country without adequate health care provision? Handing over £80 billion to GPs to commission services not only risks the important relationship between patient and doctor; it is extremely risky in itself, because of the lack of accountability.

If the plans are passed unaltered, GPs, through the quality premium bonus, will have a financial incentive to keep costs down and not to refer patients for diagnostic tests or treatment. As we found the last time the Tories tried to undertake such a scheme, they could also become unwilling to take on costly patients with chronic conditions. Those who need the most help could find it more and more difficult to get the treatment that they require.

Of deeper concern is the opaque nature of the consortiums. They will have to produce annual financial reports only for the national commissioning board, and they will not have to publish them. At the same time, every council in the country will have to publish every invoice over £500.

These health reforms have no mandate with the British people. They were in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, and even if NHS funding were not being cut, they would still run the clear risk of destabilising the service, because they hand over £80 billion of taxpayers’ money to private institutions, with insufficient safeguards in terms of accountability. The reforms are simply wrong. To allow any willing provider to deliver services risks the destruction of the NHS and a return to the dark days of the 1930s, when we had a two-tier system, with the state providing a minimum service and those who could afford to going private. That, too, would be plainly wrong, and something that the British people have consistently said they would not want.

It was pleasing to see the Lib Dem grass-roots vote against the policy last week, so I say to Lib Dem Members, “The ball is in your court. You can be on the right side of this argument, and your party can be on the right side of the British people, if you go through the Lobby tonight with us. The choice is yours. Flex your muscles and demonstrate that you are prepared to force the Government to revisit their plans by voting with Members on this side of the Chamber tonight.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

In the devastation that followed the second world war, this country had the courage and the vision to realise the dream of a health service available to all in times of need. If the Government’s plans go ahead, that dream will die. [Interruption.] Yes, it will. It is not simply that the reorganisation represents a broken promise, which it does, or that it is costly, although it is, but that it strikes at the very foundations of the NHS. Indeed, if it goes ahead, there will no longer be a national health service, but a vast postcode lottery, with treatment depending on where people live.

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry—I have not got time. [Interruption.] Other Members are waiting to speak and I will not give way.

The market, not the patient will be king. That is being done under the cloak of localism—the Government’s current buzz word. Remove the cloak and we will see the realities: an NHS driven by the market, run by a vast, unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy, with accountability to Parliament greatly reduced.

The Government plan to give all commissioning to GPs. They conveniently ignore the fact that if GPs wanted to be managers, they would have taken MBAs rather than medical degrees. They will bring in other companies—mostly private—to do the managing.

Hospice Care

Henry Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have secured this debate on palliative care and the hospice movement, particularly at a time when the coalition Government are taking the Health and Social Care Bill through the House. It is a great opportunity to talk about this important area of medicine and care, particularly because I do not think that it is always given as much attention as it deserves.

Palliative and hospice care is something that all Members are aware of, because we all have constituents who are suffering with terminal or progressive illness and we all want them to die with the most dignity that can be provided, in the most comfortable and supportive surroundings, and we all want to ensure that their families are looked after holistically. That is why hospices are so valuable to all of us and to all our constituents.

Notably, the previous Government and the new coalition Government have paid a lot of attention to cancer care, but the hospice movement is about not just cancer but a raft of progressive and terminal illnesses, such as heart disease, lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and motor neurone disease. The movement is not just for older people, either; it looks after younger people and, indeed, children with terminal illnesses.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important Adjournment debate. Last Friday I visited the Chestnut Tree House children’s hospice, which serves my constituents and those throughout Sussex, and its concern is that hospice at home and section 64 funding should not be lost in the health reforms. Does he agree that that is important?

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He talks about a children’s hospice, but hospice care, and the valuable service that it provides to people with terminal and progressive illnesses, is particularly pertinent to adults. It is also important to children, however, because there is nothing more distressing than a very sick child whom we know is going to die.

I shall explain why we need to invest in hospices and palliative care. The UK population is ageing significantly, and we will have to look after a lot more people with more than one terminal and progressive illness. By 2033, the number of people aged 85 and over is projected to more than double to 3.3 million, and it is predicted that 8.7 million people will be 75 years or older. There is an ever-increasing strain on the palliative services that help to support people with co-morbidities, or several illnesses, and we need to recognise that and invest properly in those services. It is often through the hospice movement that such people are properly looked after and their families properly supported during the terminal illness.

Hospice charities have many concerns, because in the past the top level of government paid insufficient attention to the role that hospices play in easing the burden on the NHS, as well as in providing a vital service for local communities. We are of course in a time of economic belt-tightening, but given the Government’s investment in the big society, there is a unique case for supporting hospices and the valuable services that they provide, alongside their role as a provider of NHS services and a key provider of support for families in the community.

Health and Social Care Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Before I begin my remarks on the Bill, may I say how well the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) made her maiden speech? I suspect that we disagree quite fundamentally on the future of the NHS, but one thing that is true of her and of all right hon. and hon. Members is that we want the very best health care for our constituents; we just disagree on the path that we take to get there.

A fortnight ago, I was privileged to speak on Second Reading of the Localism Bill. The hon. Lady spoke of the desire to be radical, but the Localism Bill is a radical measure that proposes to give power over the future of communities back to the people. The Health and Social Care Bill is very much in concert with the Localism Bill—and legislation on policing that is yet to be introduced—in giving authority, choice and power over the important services that people receive back to them.

Right hon. and hon. Members know that when we engage our electorates, they always—rightly and understandably—express certain priorities such as the future of our communities and law and order. Consistently, people are concerned about the future of health care. Health care is one of those great levellers. It matters not what one’s background is: we are all equally adversely affected when we do not have the right sort of health care available locally. The measures outlined in the Bill go a long way to giving back to people control over that most important public service, on which all of us and our families without exception rely.

I have spoken on many occasions to local GPs in my constituency. They are enthusiastic about their GP consortium pathfinder status. Already, they are brimming with ideas on how they can improve the patient experience in my constituency, which is broadly to be welcomed. Indeed, I have been heartened by the fact that many of my local GPs are enthusiastic about the democratic accountability that the Bill allows. My local GP pathfinder consortium wishes to be a health and wellbeing partnership pilot, working with Crawley borough council—the immediate local authority—and West Sussex county council.

[Dr Poulter]

I had the pleasure of working at my hon. Friend’s local hospital at Crawley. When I was there, I saw the downgrading of that hospital by the PCT—it lost more and more services. What discussions has he had with his local GPs on how they will improve and enhance services at the local community hospital and generally?

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is indeed legendary at Crawley hospital, and it is great to take part in this debate with him. Unlike him, I do not have a health background. My wife used to work in the NHS, but my background is as a local elected representative of my community and as a patient, and as someone whose family has had experience of the NHS.

I am afraid that I shared the bitter experience of many in Crawley during the 13 years in which the Labour party was in government. On 1 May 1997, when Labour took office, Crawley had an A and E department and a maternity unit. I am sorry to say that in 2001, Crawley hospital lost the maternity unit. At the time of a rather joyous occasion for my family, it was saddening that my children could not be born in our local hospital.

[Hugh Bayley]

The hon. Gentleman champions localism, but has he picked up that maternity services will be taken away from GP consortia under the Bill? Is that a good thing?

[Henry Smith]

I dispute that reading of the Bill. Maternity was taken away from my local community in 2001 and is now 10 miles up the road, in another county, and accessible only by single-carriageway roads, which is at best inconvenient, and at worst dangerous for patients.

The sorry tale goes on. In 2005, under Labour, Crawley hospital lost its A and E unit to East Surrey hospital—10 miles up the road, in another county—which has been seriously detrimental to my constituents, and something that they and I very much regret.

I was struck by many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), because he mentioned things very similar to our experiences in Crawley—and listening to other right hon. and hon. Members, there seem to have been similar experiences across the country as well. I can speak only from my local experience, but there was an eerie resonance in the sort of downgrading of services under the Labour Government.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what his community, like other communities, will face is a local monopoly—the GP consortia—that will focus on the most profitable lines of treatment, rather than on the best treatment? Surely this is not the right direction.

[Henry Smith]

I do not see how multiple providers is a definition of a monopoly. However, I must make progress in the short time left to me.

My constituents are pleased that for the first time in many years health decisions will be made in Crawley, rather than, as has happened up until now, on the south coast, in east Surrey or up in Whitehall, and that more decisions will be made by local people.

[Rosie Cooper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Henry Smith]

I am sorry, but I have not got enough time.

I will support the measures in the Bill, as should all right hon. and hon. Members. However, I would like briefly to ask for clarification on two points from those on the Treasury Bench. First, hospices are greatly valued in our local area—on Friday, I was privileged to visit the Chestnut Tree House children’s hospital, which serves my constituency—so some clarity over future support for hospices would be greatly appreciated. Secondly, I would also like an assurance that the merry-go-round of failing managers in our acute sector will be addressed. I regret to say that on new year’s eve, at East Surrey hospital—the acute hospital for my constituency— 14 ambulances were queuing to get into accident and emergency. That is not good enough. It is another area of the sector that needs to be reformed.

Forgive me, Mr Speaker, because in the seven seconds I have left, I would like to report that there is well-being in Crawley today, because they are due to play at Old Trafford in about three weeks’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am very grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a great relief to note that we are now having a debate, having passed the stage where people, such as the previous Government, believed that pouring in more money improved outcomes. We are now debating reform, and we should welcome its scale, so that we can head towards what patients want—improved outcomes.

Whatever the good intentions of the previous Government, there is no question but that, unfortunately, their measures led to reduced productivity, a massive increase in bureaucracy and a distortion of clinical priorities, which meant that, on the outcomes that we seek, patients were not satisfied. I have been more concerned about health outcomes and the fact that patients were becoming remote from the thing that mattered to them most. That is what the NHS is about. Whom do patients trust? Do they trust a remote primary care trust or their local doctor? There really is no contest, so I welcome these reforms, because they will give commissioning powers to GPs and bring their patients closer to the decisions about their future.

I do not recognise the picture painted by Opposition Members who say that GPs do not welcome the proposals. Already more than half the country is working under the pathfinder shadow consortia, and in Enfield we are already rushing to sign up. We have agreed our consortium, which I warmly welcome. It is keen to seize the opportunity.

Let us turn to local accountability, which goes hand in hand with local commissioning-based services. In the past, it has proved impossible to have genuine local accountability as the NHS processes ultimately all led directly to Whitehall and the Secretary of State. I agree with the Nuffield Trust that the widening involvement of independent providers, the use of social enterprises and community services, and the increase in foundation trusts mean that local accountability mechanisms should indeed be robust.

The right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who, sadly, is not in his place, and the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) expressed concerns that the mechanisms would not be robust, but I refer them to clause 170, on independent advocacy services, and to clause 175, which emphasises the scrutiny role of the local health authorities, not to mention the local representation of councillors. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) says, “One” from a sedentary position, but I shall not take lectures from a member of a party whose Government carried out no consultation as they tried to reconfigure services in Enfield against the wishes of the public. I shall turn to that now.

It makes no sense that the people who want to hold the health care community to account for their local services should have to go to an intransigent bureaucracy and ultimately up to the Secretary of State. That process is removed from where the local decision making takes place. As I said, in my constituency we are reaching a critical stage now in the future configuration of our acute hospital services. The decision prompted by the previous Government, to downgrade and rip out our vital A and E service and axe the consultant-led maternity services that see 3,000 births a year, is being relentlessly pursued by those same bureaucrats and officials from the health services, despite the fact that the decision will cost lives.

In ignoring the wishes of thousands who took to the streets and the view of the majority of Enfield GPs, those same PCT officials, even at this late hour, are effectively trying to bully the residents into accepting the changes without the consent or consultation of the people. No such arrogance would have been evident if this Bill had been in place. Local people would have been engaged in a genuine process of change because such a proposal would have had to have been agreed by the local health and wellbeing board. As the Secretary of State said yesterday morning, any possible future changes would have to be agreed in the health and wellbeing board of the local authority, which is publicly open and accountable. Gone is the “Whitehall knows best” attitude, to be replaced with local accountability, local engagement and local decision making.

Had the Bill been in place as law, I do not believe that we would have reached the 11th hour for this critical decision in Enfield. The four tests that the Secretary of State rightly requires would have kicked the issue into touch long ago because of genuine local accountability. The local authority, local GPs and, above all, local residents have spoken with one voice. I am grateful that we have a Secretary of State who believes in local accountability and decision making. In future, the voice that was ignored by the Labour party will be enshrined in this legislation. For years, we have suffered from a lack of local accountability in the health service.

[Henry Smith]

Had the Bill been law 10 years ago, Crawley hospital would not have lost accident and emergency and maternity services. It seems that my hon. Friend thinks the same about hospital services in his constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) is being generous in giving way, but I remind him that the Front-Bench winding-up speeches begin at 9.39 pm.