Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve mental health care for pregnant women and new mothers in (a) Peterborough and (b) England; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

The Government have prioritised improving mental health care and support for pregnant women and new mothers in its mandate to NHS England, with a clear objective to reduce the incidence and impact of post-natal depression. In order to implement the Government’s priority to improve perinatal mental health services, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust is working closely with local authority commissioners in Peterborough to develop a joint perinatal mental health strategy to improve care for women.

[Mr Jackson]

The Maternal Mental Health Alliance has estimated that the long-term cost of mental health care for new mothers is £8 billion, which is perhaps not unconnected to the fact that only 3% of clinical commissioning groups have a perinatal mental health strategy. Does the Minister think that this is a very serious issue and needs immediate action?

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the challenges posed by perinatal mental illness. The damage it does to women’s lives, and indeed to the wider family, was highlighted in the recent independent inquiry into maternal deaths. It is therefore important for the Government to invest, as we are doing, in improved care for the perinatal mental health of women. That is why we have made it a priority for each and every maternity unit to have staff specially trained in perinatal mental health skills by 2017.

Pancreatic Cancer

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point, which the all-party group was trying to weigh up. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe made an important point about CT scans and made the important suggestion that there should be pilots. Also, interestingly, he mentioned that the going backwards and forwards between the GP and the specialists delayed diagnosis. There are certainly things that we could learn from other countries.

One of the basic needs that came up from our research was the need for investment in the basic science and biology of tumours, as well as access to better infrastructure that would allow that, such as access to tissue samples. On the latter point, the Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund told the APPG that it was working in conjunction with Barts on creating a specific pancreatic cancer tissue bank, which would help. That is a massive investment for a small charity and it should be applauded.

As Members know, there is a massive shift throughout all cancer research towards personalised medicine. Pancreatic cancer patients could benefit particularly from such an approach, given the nature of the disease and the fact that so many different tumour types are involved. New treatments need to be developed to attack and destroy the cancer cells. That does not mean new drugs alone, but perfecting the use of advanced radiotherapy techniques, such as NanoKnife or CyberKnife, for the benefit of patients and to the satisfaction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, so that they can be provided on the NHS.

All in all, a lot of research needs funding. A key statistic for this debate, as mentioned in Maggie’s e-petition, is that pancreatic cancer receives only 1% of the National Cancer Research Institute’s site-specific spend of £5.2 million a year. That is despite the fact that pancreatic cancer is the fifth biggest cancer killer in the UK, and predicted to become the fourth biggest by 2030. It is responsible for 5.2% of all cancer deaths in the UK. The National Cancer Research Institute itself acknowledges that research into pancreatic cancer and other cancers deemed to have unmet need, such as brain and oesophageal cancers—forgive me if I do not pronounce that correctly—remains “relatively low”.

By “relatively low”, however, the institute means “low”. I contend that £5.2 million a year from the NCRI partner funders is simply not enough to tackle the extreme intransigence of a disease as tough as pancreatic cancer, a disease that has seen—as has been mentioned before and should be mentioned again and again—little change in survival rates over the past 40 years or by comparison with other countries, as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said.

Why does funding matter? Is money the be-all and end-all? No—other things need to be done as well if research into pancreatic cancer is to become more effective. However, if we look at other cancer types, we see that sharp increases in survival rates from breast, prostate and bowel cancer, for example, have mirrored sharp increases in research spending into those diseases. As Professor Peter O’Hare, chair of Pancreatic Cancer UK’s scientific advisory board—now there’s a powerful job—told the APPG inquiry:

“I think if you simply looked at the history of science, I don’t think you can, as a scientist, start to make guarantees about research. It’s not like a sausage grinder; you don’t put research in and it comes out and you solve the problem. It just doesn’t work that way”—

we totally understand and agree with that—

“there are convoluted pathways and you can’t make guarantees.

However, I think there is a guarantee you can make: if you don’t carry out research, you are not going to move; nothing is going to happen. That’s the guarantee that you could make.”

Some evidence suggests a critical mass, a level at which research needs to be funded, if advances are to start to gather pace. Pancreatic Cancer UK produced a report in 2012, “A Study for Survival”, which demonstrated a level—around £10 million to £12 million minimum—at which the amount of research starts to become sustainable and from which new research proposals and ideas are generated. Those new ideas in turn lead to more funding coming in, and we get a virtuous circle.

We are some way off that level of funding at the moment. National Cancer Research Institute funding partners contribute just £5.2 million at present. Incidentally, we learned during the all-party parliamentary group’s research inquiry that the Department of Health’s contribution to that sum is just £700,000 a year. Although they are growing, charities for pancreatic cancer are still small and supply probably less than £2 million a year between them for research. Where, then, can that extra funding come from? What needs to be done?

In its new research strategy, published in April this year, Cancer Research UK made a welcome move in the right direction, with a promise to increase funding into pancreatic and other cancers of unmet need—brain, lung and oesophageal—twofold or threefold over the next few years. That is great news.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a customarily powerful and passionate speech. He is aware that the five-year survival rate in the United States is 6%, as against 3.3% in the UK. Is he also aware that, under the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act of 2012, the US Congress has given a legal imperative for the director of the US National Cancer Institute to produce a strategy to tackle such cancers? We should do the same in the UK.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am grateful for that intervention, particularly as I will go on to mention the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act—as usual, my hon. Friend has got in before me. He is on exactly the right lines in terms of what we are all thinking.

I have talked about good news and extra money. However, I am not sure whether that goes quite far enough. There is still no ring-fencing per se of money for research into pancreatic cancer, brain tumours and so on. Instead, applications will still have to be made for funding. They will be peer-reviewed and selected from similar applications for research into other cancer types.

The issue is that the reason given by Cancer Research UK for not awarding more funding for pancreatic cancer in the past has been that not enough quality applications have been received, so the doubling or trebling of funding set out in the strategy will happen only if more applications are made. For that to happen, we need more researchers in the field, whether established and respected researchers coming over from abroad, such as Professor Andrew Biankin from Australia, who has recently relocated to Glasgow—as usual, Scotland sets the trend—to carry on his pioneering work there, or new, young researchers starting out in their careers.

We are currently in a Catch-22 situation, however: new researchers do not generally want to enter the field, partly because it is deemed difficult to make advances in it—that puts them off as they fear it will hold back their careers, as the Department of Health’s written response to the e-petition mentioned—and partly because the funding is not there. But the funding is not there because not enough research applications are being made.

I firmly believe that we need to break that vicious circle and to pump-prime research into pancreatic cancer, making sure that we hit the minimum funding level required to gain critical mass. I also firmly believe that the Government can and should play a role in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I am impressed by the standard of the speeches in the debate. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) made a powerful opening speech, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) were moving, passionate and heartfelt.

At the moment we feel that pancreatic cancer is an unfashionable issue that is low on the agenda politically and even in the health world, but other causes have been in that position, and have risen up the agenda because of pressure from this place. Pancreatic cancer is an issue that unites people across parties, and it needs attention. I would compare it to dementia and autism, which were once unfashionable, but then were the subject of landmark legislation and rose up the political agenda. That led to some success, and a huge impact on the people affected by the conditions, and their families.

I want to thank the charity Pancreatic Cancer UK for its brilliant work to raise the issue—and particularly David Park, whom I met a few months ago for a briefing—as well as the all-party group on pancreatic cancer. Seldom do all-party groups make an impact, but that one has set an agenda with the report it produced last year. I also thank Maggie Watts, of course, for her fantastic work. Her diligent, committed efforts got the e-petition going. It would have been easy for her to step back and say, “This is not something I want to get involved in. It is Government and politics, and I will leave it to someone else.” However, her sheer passion and commitment to doing what she thought was right, to right a wrong and raise an agenda, have been utterly commendable, and I congratulate her.

As we have heard, the issue is not one that can be tackled by pressing one or two buttons. The dreadful comparisons that can be made between pancreatic cancer survival rates and those for others including breast cancer and prostate cancer have been pointed out. For example, in 1971 the survival rate for prostate cancer was 31% and it is now 81%. My view is that because pancreatic cancer is now so prevalent and such a major killer, it is no longer acceptable, as a matter of NHS governance, that it should be left solely to the discretion of clinical commissioning groups. I am not a born-again centralist, but I believe we need very strong guidance, at least, from the Department of Health and the NHS, to bring the experience of the best, such as the University Hospital Southampton priority jaundice clinic, to the rest of the country. That is enormously important.

Progress has of course been made in the past few years. NICE is improving outcomes for upper gastrointestinal cancers and of course a pancreatic cancer quality standard is in development. Those things, and the cancer outcomes strategy of 2013, are all very welcome. Of course, they are focused on the quality and efficiency of cancer services, improving patients’ experience of care, and the quality of life of patients and cancer survivors. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe made the point that it is vital for the Government to have both quantitative and qualitative data at their disposal, to make value judgments about research.

I came to this subject almost by accident. It is an often overlooked aspect of being a Member of Parliament that we may stumble on issues, and then have the capacity—the honour and privilege, through being elected—to ask awkward questions and make ourselves a bit of a pain in the backside by doing so, sometimes.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Or frequently.

[Mr Jackson]

Or frequently, in my case, as my hon. Friend says.

A good friend of mine—a non-political friend in my constituency—was utterly shocked at the premature death of the husband of a very good friend of hers. He was, I think, 48, and the father of two young children. He had visited his general practitioner several times and was told over again that he was suffering from a very bad case of back pain. By the time he had his scan it was too late; the tumour was inoperable and was wrapped round other vital organs. It was not possible to operate and the poor gentleman died, leaving a young family, a matter of weeks later. That account prompted me to think and research more. Of course, I read the moving article that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood wrote for The Daily Telegraph about his experience and the tragic death of his partner such a short time after diagnosis, and that, too, prompted my interest.

Figures have already been given about the comparative spending on different cancers. The current figure of 1% of research spending, representing £5.2 million, is pitiful for a cancer that is so prevalent. If 8,800 people were being knocked down on the roads every year or killed on level crossings or through any other possibly preventable cause, we would demand immediate action; but it seems we are prepared to countenance little if anything being done by central Government on pancreatic cancer. That is not a party political view, obviously. The comparative data show that the USA has a 6% survival rate after five years and Australia has a rate of 5%; but in the UK it is only 3.3%. We must address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) made the point that it is shocking that people attend accident and emergency jaundiced and clearly seriously ill before it dawns on anyone that they are in the advanced stages of pancreatic cancer. I just feel that something more can be done, not least because, according to the briefing we have received, one in six people attend a general practitioner or other health care facility more than seven times, yet they do not receive the treatment they need.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his powerful speech. I think we all accept that earlier diagnosis is cancer’s magic key. The problem is that one in four cancers are first diagnosed late in A and E and the figure for pancreatic cancer is double that—nearly half of all pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed there. In fairness to the Government, and I will speak about this when I make my speech, does my hon. Friend agree that the focus on survival rates as a means of driving forward initiatives for earlier diagnosis at local level, whether better awareness, better screening, better diagnostics or better care pathways, is the secret to unlocking this dreadful disease?

[Mr Jackson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work as chairman of the all-party group on cancer in raising the issue of cancer generally. He is right in saying that there is no magic bullet and that a multi-faceted strategy is needed to deal with the issue. I will elucidate on that in a few moments without taking up too much further time.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South is right about public perception. We must remember that 25% of men and women who are diagnosed with this condition are not old, but younger men and women. The public should understand and embrace that fact, and I know from my experience of a much younger man who was diagnosed with the disease and died very quickly. It affects everyone throughout the country irrespective of gender, age, ethnicity, region and so on.

Over and above academic research, we should focus on GP education. This is not an opportunity to have a go at general practitioners, who do a fantastic job and work hard, but reference has been made in the nicest possible way to the ping-pong effect, as was mentioned in the all-party group’s report. We must stop that and make a decision to have clear strategies with a clinical pathway that people can get on to if they exhibit certain symptoms.

There are several reasons for the poor rate of diagnosis, which are not strictly speaking the “fault” of the general practitioner. As I have already said, there are no definitive biomarkers or tests and there is no way to get round that. It may be ameliorated or overcome following future research, but at the moment GPs are unable to decide definitively that someone is suffering from pancreatic cancer. That is clearly linked to more funding over and above the current 1%, to which I will refer later.

Low awareness of symptoms among the general public needs a multi-media approach to try to persuade people that they are not wasting a general practitioner’s time by alerting them to their symptoms, even if they are under 65. There is a lack of obvious referral pathways into secondary care for patients without obvious symptoms. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South gave an excellent anecdote about the way people are pushed around between different clinicians. That is completely different from the treatment of breast cancer where there are prescribed and definitive treatment pathways.

What are the priorities? It is vital to develop local screening tests. People should not have to travel 40 or 50 miles, and there should be such a testing facility locally in an acute district hospital or in primary care facilities. There should be collaboration between clinical commissioning groups, for example, as well as GP training, referral guidelines and diagnostic support.

I am realistic and I understand that not every GP will be an expert on pancreatic cancer, but there should be a general practitioner in the local area who can offer expert advice, training and assistance. GPs should also have direct access to CT scans. The all-party group on pancreatic cancer made all those recommendations. There should be one-stop shops where patients with vague symptoms can have a battery of different diagnostic tests. That would not remove the risk that someone has pancreatic cancer, but it would reduce the risk that they remain undiagnosed. There should be a rapid access clinic for jaundiced patients. It may be too late for some people, but some may be saved.

We need research into the biology of tumours and we must look again at the cancer drugs fund, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said. We must move to a personalised-medicine approach. It is wrong that pancreatic cancer is struggling to receive even £10 million a year for research. The Department should aspire to higher funding than the current £700,000. It should aspire to £25 million by 2022. We need a new strategy along the lines of the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act passed by the US House of Representatives for cancers of unmet need. We must ring-fence grants for such recalcitrant cancers by means of clinical trials.

This has been an excellent debate. I am convinced that the issue will rise up the political agenda and I thank everyone who has made that possible. I have had dealings with the Minister and I know that she is compassionate and diligent. I believe that she and her Department are listening and that we are well on the way to beating pancreatic cancer.

Hospital Car Parking Charges

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon). This is precisely the type of issue for which the Backbench Business Committee was established, so that we can try to alleviate the problems of people who feel their voice is rarely heard when set against a big bureaucracy.

Parking charges are an important issue because there are both philosophical and practical problems with them. Philosophically, it was never the intention that patients should be forced into a back-door stealth tax by virtue of the fact that they drive a car and need to park at a hospital. Health care has always been funded through general taxation, not patient charges, and that principle has been established by all parties. Also, surplus income has been ring-fenced for NHS activities. We run the risk of undermining the philosophical underpinning of the NHS. I accept that this is a cross-party matter, because Labour also sought to deal with it when it was in government.

In practical terms, parking charges cause real hardship for the simple reason that they are a regressive type of taxation that hits the elderly, the poorest and the sickest at the most vulnerable times in their lives. We have heard about various cases today. There are bigger issues involved in the debate, too, including our friends the West Lothian question and the Barnett formula. There is a question of fairness and equity, because people in Wales and Scotland do not suffer a similar encumbrance. Effectively, my constituents in England make a capital payment for free parking at health care facilities in Wales and Scotland, which cannot be right.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, there is a bigger strategic financial issue to consider—the impact of the private finance initiative, particularly schemes such as that in my local trust, the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which incidentally has a structural annual deficit of £40 million and so finds it difficult to deal with such matters. Both the Treasury and the Department of Health should consider the irreducibility and intractability of the debt encumbrance on such trusts, which forces them to seek finance in that way. I hope that Ministers will think in such wider strategic terms.

[David Wright]

I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. One big problem is that many hospital trusts have gone into fairly long-term contractual arrangements with private sector car parking providers. Alongside the broader points that he makes about hospital funding and PFI, the Government should examine the structure of the parking contracts that hospital trusts have put in place. One of the few ways in which they can help in that regard is through national guidance. The Government should take a lead and say to hospital trusts, “You must review this.”

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he touches obliquely on another issue—that of transparency, which some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. It should not just be through freedom of information requests by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow that we get the relevant data before us. Incidentally, my local trust substantially increased its parking revenue from £1.56 million to £1.71 million in one fiscal year. Transparency throws up some perverse practices, such as the fact that at Stamford hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), a small community hospital, there is no requirement to pay for parking, but people have to pay at Peterborough hospital, which serves virtually all my constituents. I do not think that is right.

I believe that there is a direct correlation between a wider lack of NHS transparency and high car parking charges. I cannot prove that, but it is my instinct. I say that having found out only a few weeks ago that the interim chief executive of the Peterborough trust was paid more than £400,000 a year for a four-day week. He did a good job, but at some cost to the taxpayer. Parking charges fall within that narrative, because patients should be allowed to know the costs of parking and the income received from it. As my hon. Friends have said, people parking at hospitals are vulnerable, stressed and upset, and things outside their control—bureaucracy, delay, getting the wrong treatment or whatever—can mean that they have to stay at a health care facility, such as a big acute district hospital, for longer than they would otherwise have to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made a good point about centres of excellence. In my area, the eastern region, people have to travel 30 or 40 miles. Someone with a child who has a poorly heart might have to travel from south Lincolnshire to Addenbrooke’s hospital or other places, which is difficult.

It would be churlish not to mention the Government’s guidelines. I welcome them, but we need to be tougher and we need a fiscal incentive for trusts to do the right thing—hopefully, abolishing parking charges. We need to punish trusts if they arbitrarily disregard the Government’s guidelines. Hopefully my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, with his legendary powers of persuasion that we have seen in the past four years, will ask the Chancellor to take the appropriate action. Ultimately, we should work to abolish parking charges completely, because they are an insidious, pernicious tax on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

We have 1.2 million more people going to A and Es every year. The ambulance service has, on the whole, been doing a good job, but there have been areas where there are problems. We need to change our attitude towards the capabilities of ambulance services, particularly the ability of paramedics to treat people on the spot, and we are driving through that change.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

In the absence of a definitive policy decision on the fortification of basic foodstuffs with folic acid, what steps are Ministers taking to encourage women of child-bearing age to take folic acid to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects such as spina bifida and hydrocephalus?

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight this important nutritional need for women who are planning to get pregnant or are pregnant. He and I are meeting soon to discuss fortification as a policy area. I urge all GPs and health services to take every opportunity to highlight to women this important nutritional requirement.

NHS

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

With the greatest respect, what we heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Leigh was a big argument about a massive growth of pressure on A and E departments that had been caused by, among other things, scurvy, and we found that the total number of admissions was 18. I think that that says a great deal.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the subject of disastrous mistakes made by the Labour Government, may I point out that one of the omissions in their motion is the lack of any apology for the £63 billion ticking time bomb generated by off-balance-sheet dodgy deals under the private finance initiative? The worst in the whole country, which was signed off by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) at Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals Trust, has produced an indicative structural debt of £40 million a year. [Interruption.]

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the situation is put into perspective when we know that those PFI deals are costing the NHS more than £1 billion a year: £1 billion that could have been spent on providing compassionate care and looking after patients with dignity and respect, but instead is having to finance Labour’s appalling mismanaged PFI contracts.

Let me return to the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leigh. I think that a much more substantive argument relates to the things that he chose not to say. This is the day before the anniversary of the Mid Staffs report, and this is the day on which hospitals are finally putting behind them Labour’s appalling legacy of poor care. We have 14 hospitals in special measures—all of them, incidentally, with A and E departments—making encouraging progress after a very difficult year, with 650 additional nursing staff and 50 board-level replacements between them. Every single one of those hospitals had warning signs under Labour, but rather than sorting out the problems, Labour chose to sweep them under the carpet, sometimes because they had arisen during the run-up to an election. There are 5,900 more clinical staff in the NHS than there were a year ago, and there are 3,300 more hospital nurses than there were at the time of the last election. All those people are vital to the functioning of our A and E departments.

Bullying, harassment and intimidation were perhaps the ugliest features of Labour’s management of the NHS. Now we have seen courageous A and E whistleblower Helene Donnelly being given a new year honour, alongside brave campaigner Julie Bailey, who was literally left out in the cold when she came to lobby the right hon. Member for Leigh about poor care at Mid Staffs.

There is much to do—poor care persists in too many places—but with a new Ofsted-style inspection regime, in England but not in Labour-run Wales, we can at least be confident that poor care in A and E departments and throughout hospitals will be highlighted quickly, and not hidden away. We will keep people out of A and E departments in the first place—that is something to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—with the return of named GPs for the over-75s and integrated health and social care through the better care fund: precisely the joined-up, personal and compassionate care that was envisaged when the NHS was founded 65 years ago.

Health and Social Care

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.

Thirdly, I welcome the further attempts to bear down on regulation. We need to do much more to liberate businesses from regulation, but we are, of course, inhibited by Europe, on which I wish to say a few words later.

Fourthly, the reform of long-term care arrangements has not come before time. I recommend to my Front-Bench colleagues an excellent publication from March 1997 called “A New Partnership for Care in Old Age.” We had a tremendous scheme then, which unfortunately we were not able to implement because power passed to Labour, whose Government did nothing in the 13 years when they had stewardship of these matters. I also welcome the measures to tackle immigration, although I suspect they will have limited effect.

Finally on the good news front, I think the Prime Minister has done a fantastic job of promoting Britain’s interests overseas, particularly in developing overseas trade. We have seen some reflection of that in increased trade with non-EU countries, as against trade with the EU, which, as we all know, is in meltdown.

Two issues were not mentioned: gay marriage and Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) set out why the same-sex marriages proposal is a complete diversion. We should not be doing this: the Government have no mandate for it, it is deeply divisive, particularly among many Conservative supporters, and I think we should drop it here and now.

Immigration is a big issue and it is relevant to this debate, as the Government are seeking to put in place changes to prevent people from benefiting from our taxpayers’ money by coming to this county simply to tap into our health care system. There have been encouraging signs. The observations made by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) show precisely what has been wrong in this country, in that anybody wishing to speak up on immigration has been told that their tone is wrong, or this is not the right time, or they are insensitive. His Front-Bench colleagues have now recognised that the kinds of policy he supports have been deeply damaging to his party. Labour supporters are as concerned about immigration as Conservative supporters and, I suspect, Liberal Democrat supporters.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that we should take the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) in respect of Romania and Bulgaria with a pinch of salt, given that the Labour Government predicted that between 13,000 and 15,000 eastern European citizens would come to the UK, yet over 1.2 million have come here since 2004? Labour got the figures catastrophically wrong.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to tell the right hon. Gentleman that some 1% of the Romanian population of working age, which is 150,000 people, have indicated that they wish to come to this country, as have 4% of the 4.9 million Bulgarians of working age, which is another 200,000 people. That is another 350,000 people. We cannot go on building houses and cities. As MigrationWatch has said, we will need eight cities the size of Birmingham if we are going to accommodate all the people who wish to come to this country.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition have at long last recognised that this is a serious issue. They have not a snowball’s chance in hell of being re-elected unless they are prepared to recognise the concerns of the British people. Under Labour’s stewardship, there was a deliberate act of policy: Andrew Neather, a speech writer at No. 10, said immigration was being positively encouraged by the Labour Government in order to

“rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

They knowingly inflicted this on the country—it was not done by accident—and they left this Government with the most awful backlog of cases to deal with, which is unfair to those who ought to be allowed to stay in the UK and to those in our country whose lives are affected by the presence here of people who should have been deported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

That is exactly what we are doing. We are looking at the root causes of the fact that admissions to A and E are going up so fast—namely, that there is such poor primary care provision; that, as we discussed earlier, changes to the GP contract led to a big decline in the availability of out-of-hour services; and, that health and social care services are so badly joined up. That is how we are going to tackle this issue with A and E, and that is what we are doing.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am delighted to learn that there will shortly be a new national clinical director for neurological conditions, focusing in particular on conditions such as Tourette’s syndrome. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that that appointment, which is so long overdue, will be expedited at the earliest opportunity?

[Norman Lamb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the real value of this appointment and I think that the clinical director’s work will emphasise the importance of addressing conditions such as that to which he referred. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is showing such clear support for this initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I welcome him to the House and congratulate him on his victory in the recent Corby by-election. I think he has already admitted on the record that there was a lot of scaremongering during the by-election campaign about the NHS locally. One of the main reasons for concerns about the NHS is the indebtedness of many hospitals in the east of England region, because of the record of the previous Government, who signed many of them up to private finance initiative deals. I will restate for the record once again today that, as I understand it, A and E and maternity services at Kettering at the moment are safe, and there is no consultation directly on the table at the moment. He should make sure he gets his facts right before he raises questions in the House.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Last week it was a great pleasure to visit Age UK Peterborough, whose No. 1 priority is dementia care, which coincides with the NHS priorities that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined earlier this week. Will he put in place procedures to make available capital moneys for the construction of dementia care facilities locally?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I can announce that we have already put in place such funds, because dementia is one of the biggest challenges we face across the entire health and social care system. We need more capital funds, but we also need massively to increase the shockingly low diagnosis rates. At the moment, only 42% of the 800,000 people with dementia are being diagnosed properly and therefore getting the treatment they need.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. That is a different debate, but he highlights an important issue, and it is abhorrent that 147 babies were aborted for cleft palate, hare lip and minor cosmetic issues. I have a godson who had a club foot, and he was a wonderful young boy and is a wonderful young man. I find it quite amazing that anybody would choose to abort a baby because they had a club foot, but that is an issue for another day. The amendment does not cover it, but it is an important point.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity at those Opposition Members who maintain that an organisation such as BPAS—the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—can be independent in its counselling, when in its March 2011 report and financial statement it notes that

“an increase in procedures of 13 per cent against the background of falling national trends in 2010-11”

is

“a significant achievement”?

How can the opponents of the amendment maintain that there is no fiscal link and no conflict of interest?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries]

The hon. Lady makes the assumption that I want women to continue with unwanted pregnancies. That is not the case. I have made the point that abortion is here to stay for any woman who wants an abortion. The amendment simply proposes that any woman who feels that she wants or needs counselling can be offered it—that is all. I find it very difficult to understand why the hon. Lady would feel that anybody in a crisis pregnancy should not be offered counselling. Why should they not?

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is currently fulfilling his role as Dr Evan Harris’s vicar on earth, expressed the view that everything is fine at the moment. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is routine for primary care trusts absolutely to refuse to reveal the financial relationship they have—for instance, with Marie Stopes or BPAS—on the basis of commercial confidence, and that it takes freedom of information requests to get that information? The system is clearly not working, and if we want transparency and openness, things have to change.

[Nadine Dorries]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only that, but the accounts of BPAS and Marie Stopes, which are revealed via the Charity Commission, can sometimes be three years out of date—we do not get to see them until three years later. That is amazing when one considers that the Charity Commission is paid £60 million of taxpayers’ money each year.

This, for me, is about the women who have contacted me and asked me to propose this amendment on their behalf, and I have to dedicate some of this speech to them. Every day I receive e-mails and speak to people—

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A further point is that I doubt whether there is a single constituency anywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has seen more change in health provision than mine. There are not many places where a virtually trouble-free amalgamation of two major and famous teaching hospitals into one has taken place successfully. There are not very many places that have seen more small GP practices getting together in one location and improving their performance. Those things have always been done with my strong support, even when on some occasions, at least at the outset, the ideas were not popular with some local people. Therefore, I do not accept that I do not believe in change. I believe in sensible change, not stupid change, but stupid change is what we seem to be getting.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s chutzpah, but I wonder whether he was missing in action during the last Parliament. Some of us were saying in 2008 that the imposition of independent sector treatment centres—Darzi centres—would have a direct impact on the budget of primary care trusts and would cause the development of structural deficits that would impact directly on poorer areas with smaller primary care facilities. Where was the right hon. Gentleman then, when it came to attacking his own Government on that specific issue?

[Frank Dobson]

I was attacking them! I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not notice, but I believe I was the first person to expose the fact that on average the private sector was paid 11% more per operation than the NHS was getting for the equivalent operation. I shall take no lessons from anybody when it comes to opposing some of the daft things that went on. I did oppose them and I am proud to have done so. What is being proposed now, however, goes far beyond that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who has a great deal of knowledge in these matters, has pointed out, there is scarcely any evidence from anywhere in the world to show that a competitive system delivers better health care than a collaborative system.

To ask the essentially collaborative health care system in this country to turn over to being competitive is a bit like asking the Meat and Livestock Commission to promote vegetarianism: it is simply not what people want to do; it is not their approach and nor should it be. It remains the case that Monitor is still rigged in favour of promoting competition. Let me point out—hopefully without putting my glasses on—that clause 58(3) states:

“Monitor must exercise its functions with a view to preventing anti-competitive behaviour in the provision of health care services for the purposes of the NHS which is against the interests of people who use such services.”

However, it does not say that “Monitor must exercise its functions with a view to preventing competitive behaviour in the provision of health care services which may be against the interests of the people who use such services”. Apparently, then, there is a basic, intrinsic and fundamental assumption that competition must be beneficial and non-competition must be harmful. If the Government say that Monitor is neutral, it should be given a neutrality in respect of competition and non-competition. As I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) would agree, the unfair competition of some of the independent treatment centres was harmful to and threatened the services provided by neighbouring NHS hospitals. There is clear evidence here of problems within the private sector.

I recall that, a few years ago, United Health—a subsidiary of the US United Health—took over three GP services in my constituency. It bid that it could provide the range of services for less than the local GPs, so it got the contracts. It has not complied with all the conditions that were set, but the primary care trust decided that it could not take it to court because it would be such a lengthy and expensive exercise and it feared that the PCT might not win. Not content with that, United Health recently announced that it was selling the franchise to another private outfit. It did not consult the staff. It did not consult any elected local representatives—neither me nor councillors. Above all, it never consulted the patients. These private sector outfits regard patients as part of the chattels that they can dispose of to maximum benefit and maximum profit.

That illustrates the fact that if we are to have contract-based provision of services, a huge amount of lawyer effort will be put into trying to draw up watertight contracts. What one lawyer thinks is a watertight contract, another lawyer will make a leaky contract by puncturing a hole in it, and we will go over to the system in the United States, where zillions of dollars are spent on court challenges or settlements with the providers of health care.

Furthermore, there is virtually no major American supplier of health care that has not been indicted for defrauding federal taxpayers, city taxpayers, state taxpayers, doctors or patients—and sometimes all five. I thus asked the Secretary of State whether he would rule out giving any NHS contracts to any organisation that had been indicted for defrauding people in another country. He gave me about a page-long answer, which could be summarised as, “No, he would not rule them out.”

We are thus talking about the possibility of European competition law being used to force our Secretary of State to allow people to give contracts to American companies whose greatest claim to fame is that they have defrauded innumerable Americans. I think that that is intolerable. I would have thought that all these anti-EU Conservatives found it rather embarrassing to think that European law was going to be used to allow fraudulent Americans to get contracts working in our national health service. All those things, however, will be possible under the system proposed by the Secretary of State.