Access to Medical Cannabis

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

In an outbreak of cross-party unity, I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. The approach she has taken is incredibly sensible; it is also the one that has been recommended to me by my clinical advisers. We need to ensure that we take an evidence-based, pharmaceutical-grade approach to prescription. I will take away her idea about centres of excellence, because I entirely see the point there. In the case of most drugs, it is the pharmaceutical industry that pushes for, and pays for, the randomised controlled trials. In this case, because the industry is in a different shape for other reasons, it is we who are making this happen, and we are pushing it as fast as we can

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for bringing this question forward, and I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. My constituents the Levys came to see me about their daughter, Fallon, who has LGS epilepsy. Her consultant neurologist has told the family that

“the actual logistics of the prescribing has not yet been worked out”.

Why is this the case, and what can be done to ensure that Fallon has access to the necessary medication as soon as possible?

[Matt Hancock]

I should like my hon. Friend to write to me with the exact details of that case. The process for prescription by someone on the specialist register is well trodden; it is used for all sorts of unlicensed drugs, and it should be available. We are making a second opinion available to ensure that it can be brought to bear in cases such as these. I am interested in hearing about specific cases—this applies to everyone, not just to my hon. Friend—so that we can ensure that the appropriate clinical decisions can be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

My answer of a few moments ago stands. Decisions on the commissioning of those machines are taken on a case-by-case basis locally. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has set out in guidance that cough-assist machines may be appropriate for some patients, but not in every area.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

4. For what reasons his Department categorises corrective refractive eye surgery for medical purposes as cosmetic surgery.

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

The Department does not categorise refractive laser eye surgery for medical purposes as cosmetic surgery. Laser eye surgery is regulated through providers registered with the Care Quality Commission. Doctors carrying out the surgery must be registered with the General Medical Council and, like all doctors, they must recognise and work within their competence.

[Richard Harrington]

My constituent Mr Shabir Ahmed, whom I have visited, was repeatedly recommended, by the optician he went to for his NHS eye test, to have an eye operation involving complex refractive laser surgery. Over two years, the optician called him every month, bringing the price down until it was half what it was originally. It did not work out: the surgery led to a significant deterioration in his eyesight, and the company denies all responsibility and liability. It seems to me—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Richard Harrington]

Mr Speaker, please bear with me for two sentences. Surgery as complex as that needs the same kind of regulation as if it were in hospital.

[Mr Speaker]

Questions do need to be shorter, otherwise they will eat into everyone else’s time.

National Health Service

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker, to stick to the eight-minute guideline—without casting any aspersion on the previous speaker, the illustrious former Secretary of State. I shall be watching the clock.

So much has been said about the situation nationally, and I found the speech by the shadow Secretary of State, which I listened to carefully, very political, controversial and adversarial. I shall do my best not to speak in that manner. Instead, I would like Members to listen to my personal experiences in the Watford area, from speaking to people and visiting, several times, the A and E department, the general hospital, the clinical commissioning group, and so on. As a Back-Bench Member, that is about the best I can do. It is very confusing watching these tennis matches—as soon as the Secretary of State says something, the shadow Secretary of State is on television saying completely the opposite. It is confusing for people who work in the NHS and the rest of our constituents.

As the Secretary of State said, there is unquestionably pressure on the NHS. Everybody knows that. We all know the statistics about people getting older and needing more medical care. I frequently have to ask my mother, when she phones the GP every other day, “Is it necessary?”, and I am sure she thinks it is always necessary, because when people get older, they need care, and the Government have to respond to that. However, these insinuations and open statements by the Opposition that NHS spending has been cut are untrue, and they frighten people. It is a fact—it cannot be disputed—that spending has increased in cash terms every year since the coalition came to power and by £13 billion overall, and will increase by £2 billion alone next year.

I have spoken to consultants and nurses at Watford A and E—I have been there nearly every week since the beginning of the year—and I have seen ambulances backing up, and all the things that people on both sides of the House have mentioned. When I ask the A and E consultants why, they say, “These are not people with trivial illnesses, but people with serious concerns.” It is not a question of people with sore thumbs phoning the national number and being sent to A and E—I am certain of that, having spoken to many people in reception. We are not talking about people who should be going to see a nurse or a walk-in centre; these are serious matters, and there are a lot more of them. The extra GP hours will help, but I will come to that later.

The Watford area is making progress, however. Northwick Park hospital has just opened a big A and E, which I am sure will take off some of the pressure; the Herts Valley CCG has had a 5.5% increase; and there are more than 1,000 extra doctors in the region since 2010—I have seen them; they are not just a statistic. I have spoken to them and the management. They are real people. Similarly at Watford general, we have 142 more full-time nurses. I opened a new ward last week at Watford general, and there is a £1.6 million ambulatory care unit. There are lots and lots of new things, yet Labour did a party political broadcast from Watford hospital that really annoyed the staff, the management and my constituents, because it frightened people and gave the impression that the service was disintegrating and disappearing.

On the important subject of GPs, there is no question but that it was a mistake by previous Governments to restrict GP working hours. I commend the Watford Care Alliance for being among the first to get money under the Prime Minister’s fund to finance seven-day opening for GP services till 8 o’clock, which has made a significant difference. In Watford alone, there will be 16,000 extra appointments this year, which is a lot.

I am delighted that the Health Secretary came to visit Dr Mark Semler, whom I hope he will agree was inspirational in the way he spoke about the programme. He is a local GP who has taken this challenge on. Of course, there are big challenges with IT and explaining it to other staff in the area, but he is an inspirational man, and I think we had a constructive conversation with all the doctors about the implications of this policy. They have taken on the extra hours, and they know it is providing a service. In time, it will help significantly in providing a service to my constituents and taking some of the pressure off A and E.

I am pleased that Watford was one of the first in the country to do that, and I think it has been a success. I know the Government’s ambition is to roll it out to the rest of the country, which would be a major step forward. The actual infrastructure—the offices, the surgeries, the premises—are there, and to anyone from a background outside the public service, it would seem strange to have all those assets and not to use them for the benefit of the customers, who, in this case, are the patients. I commend the Government for that and I thank the Secretary of State that Watford was one of the first places in the country to do this.

Finally, I want to comment on the air ambulance service, which, as he often does, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) mentioned earlier. I have seen it and think the service is very impressive, and I hope the Government will consider giving it some of the LIBOR funding—it would be an excellent use of that money.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive speech. It is incredibly helpful, because a lot of people get very concerned when we play “Punch and Judy” occasionally. Does he recognise the role of pharmacies, which are a key part of our NHS that we need to make greater use of?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some pharmacists feels under threat from internet pharmacists—not illegal ones abroad, but proper ones—but the personal contact with pharmacists and the advice they offer can provide them with an enhanced role in the internet era. So I agree with him totally.

And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, concludes my comments.

Surrogacy

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on securing the debate, which, I know, is an extremely difficult thing to do.

I am here today because I had a surrogacy case concerning a constituent, and nobody could help me to help my constituent other than my hon. Friend, who gave so much of her time and showed a level of expertise way beyond the remit of this House. I am not sure whether that expertise was professional or political, but it was a huge help and I am very grateful to her.

That case gave me an interest in the subject, and in surrogacy from an international perspective. Some constituents of mine, the Patels, who are both UK citizens and who have lived in Watford for many years, decided to enter into a perfectly legal surrogacy agreement in India—I understand that surrogacy is legal there, both nationally and in each state. The surrogacy took place in a place in India that they knew well. There was no question as to their British citizenship or indeed that of the baby.

Notwithstanding that, I was shocked to find that despite my constituents having a legal contract and a certificate from the Home Office signed on behalf of the Home Secretary, and despite having done everything they possibly could—that was extremely expensive for them, but they are a decent, law-abiding professional couple and did everything properly—their son spent the first eight months of his life without meeting his father. It might seem ridiculous, but the father had to send the Home Office not just his birth certificate, but his passport, so that proceedings could take place. He therefore could not go to visit his son in India. Despite every effort by his solicitors and others—I even spoke to the high commissioner in India—the case was treated as an administrative matter about passports, and everyone was told to look at the website, with its 16-week service standard. No one was interested in the surrogacy aspect of the case.

I must commend the efforts of the Immigration Minister, whose office regularly contacted the Passport Office. However, I began to realise something that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash had warned me about—surrogacy is not understood at all because there is no international agreement or protocol. I know nothing about this sort of thing myself—I have picked up this information from one particular case. It seems absolutely ridiculous that people who are trying to do everything properly, who have done what their lawyers have advised them and who have dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s, still had to wait weeks and months, as if the case was a passport application for an immigrant and there was a suggestion of fraud or some kind of trickery.

When my hon. Friend told me of her intention to campaign for an international agreement on surrogacy because of the need to bring things up to date, I thought that fell exactly in line with what my constituents wanted. To this day, the baby is in India, despite the fact that, as a result of the Immigration Minister’s good intentions, the father got his passport back. He has been able to go and spend time with his baby, although temporarily he has had to give up his professional practice. That situation is outrageous.

I commend my hon. Friend for what she is doing. She is one of the leading experts in the field, both in this House and in the legal sphere. I wish her all the best and am pleased to be able to support her in this debate.

Manufacturing

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

I listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman said in his excellent contribution, and in a moment I will mention the problems that companies—especially manufacturing companies—have in accessing funds that would allow them to grow, especially in export markets. I have a particular suggestion to put to the Minister on whether the Government are trying to do anything about that.

I hope that I have mentioned the huge potential and the enormous scope for us to be a leading player in manufacturing and engineering in the 21st century. None of that is inevitable, of course, and nor will it happen by chance. In the era of the most intense global competition imaginable and with economies such as China—known for its low-cost manufacturing—anxious to move up the value-added chain, Britain needs to put in place the best possible policy framework to ensure that our ambitions are realised. In the words of Richard Lambert, the former director-general of the CBI, the Government, particularly the Department designed to champion British growth, enterprise and industry, need to provide

“a vision of the kind of economy we want to have in ten years time and what it’s going to take to get from here to there”.

Instead, however, a leading global manufacturer has stated flatly:

“The government is not giving us a reason why we should be in the UK in 10 to 15 years’ time.”

The Government are not doing all that they can to allow British manufacturing to fulfil its potential. Worse than that, decisions taken by Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in the past 18 months have ensured that British manufacturing has taken a backward step. Our economy has grown by just 0.5% in the past year compared with 1.5% in the US and 2.3% in Germany. Export activity is stalling, and both output and sentiment are at their lowest levels since the height of the recession two years ago.

That situation is confirmed by today’s publication of the CBI’s industrial trend survey, the briefing on which reported:

“UK manufacturers reported a weakening in order books in November, with export orders in particular deteriorating significantly… As a result, firms expect a fall in production over the coming quarter”.

Not all of this is the Government’s fault, but an awful lot of it is—far more than BIS Ministers will acknowledge. BIS, charged with being the Department for growth, is weak and out on a limb in Whitehall. Whether trying to secure a stimulus for the economy—we will see what happens on Tuesday with the autumn statement—or support for the UK train manufacturing industry, the solar panel industry, Sheffield Forgemasters or long-term investment in oil and gas, the Secretary of State always plays the game but always loses. Worse than that, though, he always loses by putting the ball in his own net. The CBI’s director-general, John Cridland, described the appalling decision, which the House debated yesterday, on feed-in tariffs and the threat to the solar panel industry as

“the latest in a string of government own goals”.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman said until he claimed that the Government should take much of the blame over the past few months. I must return his mind to the fact that more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost under the tutelage of the previous Government. I would like to hear his comments on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on bringing about this debate. I also congratulate the Minister on his comments so far and, in particular, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), not only on his contribution, but on the resilience of his bladder, which has enabled him to stay in his place for such a long time. It is always a pleasure to see him. On these occasions, it is difficult to think of something to say that is different from the contributions that other Members have been making for what seems like 25 hours. But I shall do my best.

I was born into a family with a modest factory, and I saw the decline of British manufacturing through my own experiences and my own eyes, because my father was similar to most small manufacturers of clothing in Leeds, near to the constituency of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), and he had a similar business to those in Bradford. He was put out of business by imports, but we have to look beyond that and ask, “Why has manufacturing failed?” [Interruption.] The shadow Minister shakes his head, but it has failed, and I will explain why.

Manufacturing has failed as a type of business for entrepreneurs to go into as a start-up. We all know that in Britain most large businesses started off not with big foreign investment, which has been very successful, but with people deciding to start businesses in a small way and to build them up to medium-sized businesses and then into some of the great businesses, such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in Hartlepool.

Manufacturing has failed for three reasons. First, there has been a failure of capitalism in this particular field. Members might think it strange to hear a Conservative Member using Marxist terminology—[Laughter]—particularly for the amusement of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—but I mean that although a lot of capital has been employed in businesses in this country, comparatively little has been used by manufacturing. That is because capital is invested to obtain a return, and in my generation manufacturing enterprise has not generally led to significant returns.

Capital that belonged to families has grown in other ways. My father is a classic example of a person who, having found that his business was worthless, sold a small site to property developers and probably made more money than he could have in years of business. That is the story of many family manufacturing businesses in this country.

Secondly, there has been a failure of management. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, in an excellent contribution, mentioned being shown around Magdalen college, Oxford, where he was told that the bright undergraduates were going into the City. When he made that point, he was looking at my right hon. Friend the Minister, who I remember from my time was in fact at Christ Church rather than Magdalen, but I am sure he accepts that in our generation exactly the same thing happened.

Why did people go into the City? First, those people who were business-minded went, perfectly reasonably, into businesses where they felt they could make a lot of money. Secondly, and to draw another a Marxist analogy, for more than 100 years the class system in Britain looked down on manufacturing industry, so all that people such as my father, who was in manufacturing, wanted was for their sons not to have to put up with what they had put up with. These days people would say that manufacturing is not “cool” or “culturally acceptable”, but for many years has fallen, let us say, out of fashion.

[Craig Whittaker]

I have a lot of empathy for what my hon. Friend is saying. I mentioned in my speech the companies Boxford, Heights, BCA Leisure and Decorative Panels, all from the Calder Valley. They started from very small premises indeed and have built up. Does he agree that the biggest problem at the moment is that the banks just are not investing in research and development?

[Richard Harrington]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s intervention, but that issue has been covered in other hon. Members’ speeches, and in the remaining time I am trying not to mention it for that reason—valid though it is.

The reality is that for bright young people, manufacturing is not, by and large, something for them to go into. For some reason it is different in the United States. Very bright graduates—the brightest that Harvard and other places have—could always join firms such as Ford, General Motors and IBM. At those companies, they could expect to make as much money—if it is, indeed, money they are interested in—as the people who joined Goldman Sachs or such firms in Wall street or the City. We have not had that here so, in my experience—and that of the hon. Member for Huddersfield at Magdalen college and of the Minister at Christ Church college—people who were interested in making a lot of money from our generation did not go into manufacturing.

I have mentioned capital and management. The third issue is labour. I am not falling into the ridiculous trap of saying, “It’s the fault of the unions and the workers that we don’t have manufacturing.” Nevertheless, the issue of labour is a contributory factor. In Watford, where we have a few very good manufacturing companies, notwithstanding that there are 3,000 people on jobseeker’s allowance in the constituency, manufacturers have a problem getting unskilled labour because they cannot get people who will do night shifts and consistently do the kind of work that is expected. It is not dangerous work, but it is fairly mundane. Consequently, they have to import labour from Poland.

It is not right in the remaining nanosecond I have left to go into detail about the benefit culture, but we have to accept that if manufacturing is going to return, we must have people who believe it is a perfectly respectable and proper occupation to work in a factory. We want them to, and they should be properly rewarded for doing so. However, we cannot have a situation in which people feel it is not the right thing to do.

Manufacturing has been the victim of imperfections in capital and in management, its status in society and the attitude of labour towards it. Such a situation needs to be corrected, but that should be done on the true basis of entrepreneurship, which relates to people who may be called greedy by some. They want to make money, but they will pay their taxes and employ people as a by-product. It is a great thing to employ people but, for somebody going into business, it is a by-product rather than the reason they are doing it. When manufacturing becomes easier than property development, easier than the City, easier than management consultancy, easier than the law or, indeed, politics, it will come back—but only then.

Clostridium Difficile

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It was in January 2007 that I last secured a debate on clostridium difficile, or C. diff as it is commonly known. It was the first time that the House had debated the subject, and I recall how at the time Mr Speaker’s office questioned what C. diff was. Indeed, many hon. Members had never heard of it. Since that time, however, sadly the impact of this cruel and often unremitting infection has demanded the public’s and, indeed, the Government’s attention. All hon. Members will probably know of someone in their constituency or family who has suffered from C. diff. Indeed, in that regard I welcome the attendance of Mr Deputy Speaker, who has a deep and personal interest in the issue, following the loss of his mother as a result of C. diff.

I gladly acknowledge that there has been much progress in the three or so years since I last raised this subject. However, C. diff still leaves thousands of people each year suffering great discomfort, loss of dignity and, sadly, loss of life. The media spotlight comes on to the subject when there is an inquiry into a hospital trust and then moves on but, away from its glare, the terrible and often tragic effects of this infection have not gone away.

I know that the Minister will provide me with an answer, which is the primary purpose of this debate—namely, an assurance that the Government take C. diff very seriously and are working hard not only to reduce it but to eradicate it. Much has changed since 2007, not least with the Government’s plans to revolutionise the national health service and empower patients and general practitioners. I hope that this debate will help to identify the challenges and opportunities to tackle C. diff, not only in the hospital setting but in the community.

Some things, or rather someone, have not changed since the previous Adjournment debate in 2007. I refer to the active involvement and national leadership on the issue of C. diff of my constituent Graziella Kontkowski, who has attended the debate this evening, as she did back in January 2007. Tragically, Graziella’s grandmother died as a result of the C. diff infection. Graziella describes being

“helpless, watching my grandmother die a slow and painful death without being able to do anything to help her—it was the worst thing I've ever experienced.”

Since then, she has used her experience and remarkable passion and energy to ensure that other families are able to face and fight C. diff and its terrible effects. Alongside her brother Mark, Graziella set up the online C. diff support group, which can be found at www.cdiff-support.co.uk, to make it possible for people who have been infected by C. diff, or whose loved ones have suffered from its effects, to share their experiences and advice with one another. The C. diff support group has about 1,500 members and continues to make a valuable contribution to the public debate on C. diff and to the lives of many who are struggling in similar circumstances to those that Graziella and her family went through.

Graziella also helps to support the work of the Centre for Healthcare Associated Infections, which is based at the university of Nottingham. With the danger of bacteria mutating to become more resistant to antibiotics, its efforts towards the development of new vaccines and rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of the infection are to be commended. Its research can truly be described as life saving, and I encourage members of this House, and members of the public, to consider supporting its work.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done on this very difficult subject. I would like him and his constituent to know that there is a device in America called Zimek, which I have observed. It is the most fantastic system that disperses disinfectant and has eradicated C. difficile in hospital wards. It is undergoing clinical tests in Northwick Park hospital, which is just next to my constituency and where many of my constituents are being treated. I urge the Minister to take note of this. I would be delighted to send him details showing the fantastic effects that the device has had in America, very cheaply and in a way that I believe could save millions of lives in this country.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the case for that proposal very well. Indeed, there are several innovative developments, not only in the hospital setting but in trying to look at prevention. Prebiotics is another area that is worth considering. I ask the Minister to look at supporting the centre I mentioned and at how we can support research in this field.

A C. diff infection exacts a great cost from the patient who suffers from it and the family who witness it. It is also financially expensive. In 2008, the Department of Health released a report called “Clean, safe care: reducing infections and saving lives”, which noted that treating one patient with a C. diff infection cost the NHS more than £4,000 per patient. By this estimation, and considering the number of infections reported last year, C. diff cost taxpayers close to £1 billion in the past 12 months.

It is true that C. diff has received a far more coherent and concerted response from the NHS in the past three years than it had previously. It is equally clear that this focus has had a positive effect on the quality of care and on survival rates in our hospitals. Last year the infection was noted on fewer than 4,000 death certificates and was considered to be responsible for deaths in 1,712 cases. That is less than half the rate in 2007, when more people died as a result of C. diff than as a result of road accidents. However, as the Secretary of State for Health has said:

“There is no tolerable level of preventable infections.”

I am grateful to his Department for making it clear that a zero-tolerance approach to health care-associated infections is a priority for the Government. During the week beginning 26 September, 190 new cases of infection were reported by hospitals in England and Wales—an average of 27 cases a day, or more than one every hour. There is no room at all for complacency.

One problem of which we need to be aware is the number of incidents of recurring C. diff symptoms in patients. I am greatly concerned that hospitals are releasing those who have suffered with the symptoms of the infection too early, which leads to many having to return to hospital with the same problem. I am glad that the Department has recently made it clear that hospitals are responsible for the care of a patient for up to 30 days after they have been discharged.