NHS White Paper
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing two further consultation documents seeking views on proposals set out in the White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” (Cm 7881). We are consulting on proposals for an information revolution and to give patients greater choice and control. The vision set out in the White Paper is of an NHS and social care system that puts patients and the public first and is more responsive to their needs and wishes—an NHS where patients, service users, carers and families have far more influence and choice in the system and where they have the information they need. “Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control—A consultation on proposals” and “Liberating the NHS: An Information Revolution—A consultation on proposals” have been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. The documents are also available electronically at www.dh.gov.uk/liberatingtheNHS.
“Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control—A consultation on proposals” further develops the choice commitments set out in the White Paper to:
increase the current offer of choice of any provider significantly;
create a presumption that all patients will have choice and control over their care and treatment and that all patients will have a choice of any willing provider wherever relevant;
introduce choice of named consultant-led team for elective care by April 2011 where clinically appropriate;
extend maternity choice;
begin to introduce choice of treatment and provider in some mental health services from April 2011;
begin to introduce choice for diagnostic testing from 2011;
begin to introduce choice post-diagnosis from 2011;
introduce choice in care for long-term conditions as part of personalised planning;
move towards a national choice offer to support people’s preferences about end-of-life care; and
consult on choice of treatment.
The proposals envisage choice of treatment and health care provider becoming the reality in the vast majority of NHS-funded services by no later than 2013-14.
The second consultation “Liberating the NHS: An Information Revolution—A consultation on proposals” is about transforming the way information is collected, analysed, controlled and used in NHS and adult social care services. The information revolution is about moving:
away from information belonging to the system, to patients and service users being clearly in control;
away from patients and service users merely receiving care, to patients and service users being active participants in their care;
away from information based on administrative and technical needs, to information based on patient and service user consultation and good clinical and professional practice;
away from top-down information collection, to a focus on meeting the needs of individuals and local communities;
away from a culture in which information was held close and recorded in forms that were difficult to compare, to one characterised by openness, transparency and comparability;
away from the Government being the main provider of information about the quality of services to a range of organisations being able to offer service information to a variety of audiences; and
in relation to digital technologies, away from an approach where we expect every organisation to use the same system, to one where we connect and join up systems.
These consultations are opportunities to seek the views of patients, the wider public and the NHS, about the challenges that lie ahead, how we can successfully address them, and how we best take forward the choice and information commitments. Responses to the consultation will help us shape how greater choice and control and the information revolution are delivered.
The consultation period for both documents will close on 14 January 2011.
NHS Constitution (Whistleblowing)
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
On 9 June I made a statement to the House about the failings of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, Official Report, column 333. I made clear my intention to hold a full public inquiry into how these failings have continued unchallenged and undetected for so long.
A culture of fear and secrecy had pervaded this trust, leaving its staff feeling unable to raise concerns. Therefore, I set out action needed prior to the publication of the inquiry’s findings in March 2011. Specifically, I made it clear that I intended to initiate work on whistleblowing, to improve conditions and procedures for those who wished to raise concerns.
Today, I am launching a public consultation on amendments to the NHS constitution and its handbook, which are concerned with making clear the rights and responsibilities of NHS staff and their employers in respect of whistleblowing.
The consultation proposes three key changes:
highlighting existing legal rights of all staff to raise concerns about safety, malpractice or other wrongdoing without suffering any detriment;
introduce an NHS pledge that employers will support all staff in raising such concerns, responding to and where necessary investigating the concerns raised; and
create an expectation that NHS staff will raise concerns about safety, malpractice or wrongdoing at work which may affect patients, the public, other staff or the organisation itself as early as possible.
Responses from all interested parties are welcome. The consultation and response form have been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. The documents can also be found at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/index.htm.
The consultation closes on 11 January 2011.
I am pleased to say that this consultation follows significant progress already made on whistleblowing since June. On 25 June 2010 new guidance was published for the NHS, developed through the social partnership forum (SPF) with expert support and advice from the independent whistleblowing charity Public Concern at Work.
Designed to support NHS organisations who are in the process of updating or creating whistleblowing policies and procedures, the guidance promotes best practice. It suggests simple steps to help NHS organisations ensure their whistleblowing arrangements are fit for purpose. The guidance can be found on the Department’s website at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4050929.
In addition, the NHS Staff Council has negotiated changes to the terms and conditions of service handbook for NHS staff covered by Agenda for Change, to include a contractual right and duty to raise concerns in the public interest. A circular to NHS organisations informing them of these changes was published on 13 September 2010 with immediate effect. Both these are available on the NHS employers website at:
www.nhsemployers.org/PayAndContracts/Pay%20circulars/Agenda-for-Change/Pages/2010.aspx.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
1. What steps he is taking to work with clinicians and patient groups in the design of the cancer drugs fund.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
We are committed to ensuring that the cancer drugs fund, which is to be introduced in April next year, will enable NHS patients to have greater access to new cancer drugs. We will soon consult the public and clinicians on our plans for this. From 1 October this year, as an interim measure, regional panels led by expert clinicians will respond to requests to fund cancer drugs that have not been funded locally.
Neil Carmichael
I am delighted with the answer from the Secretary of State. Some people are concerned about the possibility of a postcode lottery. Has the Department thought about that, and what actions does it plan to avoid the fund being subject to that?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many people are concerned about their experience of a postcode lottery and access to new cancer drugs. Indeed, there is not just a postcode lottery but an international lottery, with patients in this country not getting access through the NHS to new cancer drugs while patients in other countries do get access to those drugs in the same clinical circumstances. That is why we will not only establish the cancer drugs fund next year, but, this year, we have found £50 million by making savings on management and marketing costs to enable new cancer drugs to be made available, at a regional level across England, where they are not funded locally.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence about the fund, and is it cash-limited?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I did have discussions with NICE. The interim measure this year is indeed cash-limited—£50 million is available between October and the end of March.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State consider seriously the situation with regard to Avastin—a drug that particularly relates to bowel cancer? I have a constituent who is dying of that complaint, and their primary care trust has refused treatment under current NICE guidance. NICE is currently reviewing the situation. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State will say that he will support positive findings.
Mr Lansley
My colleagues and I are very well aware of the issues relating to Avastin, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. In terms of the interim measure that starts on 1 October, patients should go through all the normal procedures of seeking treatment through their hospital with the consent of their PCT. However, if that fails, a regional panel of expert clinicians will be able to look at their circumstances, with a special fund to enable patients to have access to cancer drugs which previously they would not have received.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Of course we support efforts to ensure that those with rarer cancers get access to the drugs that they need, but there are serious concerns about the cancer drugs fund. Professor Alan Maynard says that
“this will run a coach and horses through the work done by NICE”.
The Lancet has called the fund a product of political opportunism and intellectual incoherence leading to the potential for a postcode lottery between strategic health authorities. Where does this leave NICE—an organisation that the Secretary of State said that he wants to strengthen?
Mr Lansley
It in no way undermines the role of NICE, which continues to play a very important role in giving advice to the NHS on the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs. However, there are many circumstances at the moment whereby patients are not getting access to medicines. NICE, through its thresholds, is setting limitations on access to new cancer medicines. The hon. Lady should know, because the research was commissioned under her Government, that we need to look at international variations in drug use across health economies. Her Government did not publish that information; we have published it. It demonstrates that in this country we have relatively poor access to new cancer medicines, often before the point at which NICE has undertaken a full cost-effectiveness appraisal. We are going to ensure that patients in this country do not lose out as a consequence of those delays.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
When considering the drugs fund, will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that many patients who have had chemotherapy find relief from using herbal medicine and acupuncture? When will he come forward with proposals to interface with next year’s European directive so that herbal and acupuncture practitioners can conform to the law?
Mr Speaker
I know that the Secretary of State’s response will relate to the cancer drugs fund.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
3. What estimate he has made of the number of redundancies which would result from the abolition of strategic health authorities and primary care trusts?
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Our White Paper set out proposals for greater devolution to clinical leadership in the NHS and an enhanced role for local authorities in setting health strategies and improving public health. That means that we will abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. General practice-led consortiums will make decisions about their requirements for management support, as will the new NHS commissioning board and local authorities. However, the requirement to cut management costs and protect the front line will mean reduced numbers of administrative posts. The extent of that will depend on local plans, and we will publish an impact assessment in due course.
Mr Cunningham
The coalition agreement stated that PCTs would be a strong voice for the public. How will the Government achieve that if they are going to abolish them?
Mr Lansley
We set out clearly in the White Paper how we will increase accountability to the public, including by establishing Health Watch. Before the election, the hon. Gentleman’s party’s Government demolished the patient representative voice in community health councils and patients’ forums and created nothing effective in its place. Health Watch will be an effective voice for patients, and democratic accountability through local authorities will be far stronger because Health Watch will enable NHS services, public health services and social care to be joined together through co-ordination in a local authority’s health and well-being partnership.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
On the question of redundancies, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and I represent adjacent constituencies covered by the same NHS trust, in which there is currently a review of urgent care provision at the hospital of St Cross in my constituency. Candidates for the Labour leadership recently visited the area, and one spoke to the Rugby Advertiser about his concern that the review was an example of the
“economic masochism being unveiled across the country by the Tories who continue to show no compassion for the vulnerable.”
Does the Secretary of State share my outrage at the choice of language by the likely Leader of the Opposition, and will he confirm that since this Government have committed themselves to real-terms increases in NHS funding, any reforms considered for Rugby will have nothing to do with the amount of funding for the local NHS?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We visited St Cross hospital together, so he knows the importance that we both attach to the service that is provided there for his constituents locally, but that happens in the context of the resources that we provide to enable the NHS to do its job. The Government have made an historic commitment to increase resources for the NHS in real terms each year, notwithstanding the appalling financial circumstances that we inherited from the Labour party.
The policy of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is to cut the NHS budget. Under those circumstances and under the policies of the Labour party, the number of redundancies in the NHS would proliferate.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is planning the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS, and yet he is unable to give basic information on it, such as how many people may lose their jobs, to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). Tens of thousands of people who work for primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are at risk of losing their jobs, so it is no wonder that after a just a few short weeks in his job, the Secretary of State has brought morale in the NHS to rock bottom.
In his letter to the NHS, the NHS chief executive says that £1.7 billion should be set aside to pay for the Secretary of State’s reorganisation. Others have said that the cost of his reform could be up to £3 billion. At a time when the NHS needs every penny to maintain standards of patient care, it is scandalous for money to be diverted in that way. He may be ignoring the human cost, but can he tell the House today his latest estimate from the Department of how much his ideological reorganisation will cost?
Mr Lansley
I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would at least remember what he was responsible for before the election. He said that the NHS in this financial year should set aside 2%—£1.7 billion—for the cost of reorganisation. I have not changed that figure by one penny. However, I have taken his policies, which led to a proliferation in management costs—an 80% increase in the cost of management consultants in the NHS in two years and a doubling of management costs in PCTs and SHAs in eight years—and reversed them. We are cutting management costs in the NHS this year by more than £220 million and by up to £1 billion over four years. I make no apology for that, because if we are to protect front-line services and improve health outcomes, that is exactly what we need to do.
Andy Burnham
Let us first get some facts straight. I asked PCTs to set aside money to invest in patient care, changing patient pathways and better services. I did not say that a Labour Government would cut the NHS budget; I said that we would maintain it in real terms, not increase it, as the Secretary of State proposes. The effect of his increase will mean severe cuts to councils, which need to provide care support to older people to get people out of hospital.
However, the Secretary of State would not today tell us what his proposals would cost. Is it not the case that the plans were not in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos, and that there is no democratic mandate for the break-up of the NHS? Given that there is now a chorus of protest at his plans, will he step back, listen to patients and staff and consult on those reforms before taking them forward further?
Mr Lansley
I and my colleagues are engaging right across the country with patients, the public, local authorities, PCTs and general practitioners, and we are meeting enthusiasm for our proposals. Why? Because we are focusing on delivering improving outcomes for patients, and doing so in the context of an historic commitment by this coalition Government to increase resources for the NHS in real terms each year. The right hon. Gentleman’s policy would be to cut the NHS budget.
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State thinks he can behave any way he likes with the NHS, the most beloved institution in this country, but we will not let him—we will give him a fight every inch of the way. The latest example of his high-handed and arrogant behaviour came on the eve of a bank holiday weekend, when he casually let slip that NHS Direct would be scrapped. NHS Direct is a valued service that receives 27,000 calls every day and saves millions of pounds for the NHS, and that has more than 3,000 staff working for it. Will he today apologise for making that statement in such an outrageous manner? Will he listen to the 14,000 people who signed a petition to save NHS Direct, and going forward, stop acting in such a cavalier manner with our NHS?
Mr Speaker
Order. A question should be a question—it should not really be three questions.
Mr Lansley
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman should remember what he did before the election. A press release from his Department on 18 December 2009, when he was Secretary of State, said that he would establish a new 111 national number for non-emergency health care, and that this could become the single number to access non-emergency care services, including NHS Direct. I did not announce anything: I simply said that we were going to get on with that—he never did.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
4. What plans he has for the future of the national capitation formula.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
14. What steps his Department takes to ensure that local NHS trusts observe its guidelines on reconfigurations involving transfer of facilities from one hospital to another.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Commissioners should ensure that current and future reconfigurations demonstrate evidence of compliance with the four criteria that I announced in May. That should be a rigorous process, involving GPs and other local clinicians, local authorities, patients and the public, as set out in guidance. For current schemes, the local assessment should be concluded by 31 October this year.
Gordon Birtwistle
Is my right hon. Friend aware that East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust is breaching his guidelines by transferring a children’s ward from Burnley to Blackburn without the approval of local GPs and the local council or the support of the local population? Will he please intervene?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend and I have had a conversation in Burnley about emergency and children’s services at Burnley hospital. I was not aware of the position that he has just described, but I will ensure that any reconfigurations that have taken place in the past and are still being reviewed, or that are currently being proposed or acted on, comply with the criteria that I set out in May, and I will write to him.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
15. What mechanisms are in place to assess the effectiveness of assertive outreach teams in providing support for people with severe mental illness; and if he will make a statement.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My responsibility is to lead the national health service in delivering improved heath outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care that supports and protects vulnerable people.
Caroline Flint
In recent years more research and evidence has demonstrated that the trans fats present in our food are a major heath hazard. That is how the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has described them, and the World Health Organisation has described them as toxic, but many people do not even know they are in our foods because they are not listed on the front of our food packaging. Is the Secretary of State prepared to consider banning trans fats in our food, as is happening in other countries around the world, or at the very least consider making sure they are labelled on the products we buy so that we can make an informed choice?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Lady will know that we have made progress in this country in reducing the amount of trans fats in foods. My personal view is that we should seek to eliminate them, rather than have them in foods and have them labelled. It is important that we have front-of-pack food labelling that identifies the extent to which there are saturated fats, and I am looking forward to making greater progress in getting a more consistent front-of-pack food labelling than we have achieved in the past.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T2. GPs and GP practice managers in my constituency are keen to get on with GP commissioning because they see that that can lead to better outcomes for local people but, unsurprisingly, they have a number of detailed questions as to how GP commissioning will work. Who will best answer those questions, and when will that happen?
Mr Lansley
My ministerial colleagues, and many other leadership colleagues across the NHS, are engaged in meeting staff and potential commissioners, and existing commissioners and patients and public across the country. I had a meeting of that kind in Hampshire just last week, which illustrated precisely the point my hon. Friend makes: people came from general practices across Hampshire, and they fully endorse the principle of this change and they just want to get on with it. They did not want to wait for the full transition, and they now wanted to go through some of the detailed questions. We issued a consultation document following the White Paper, which was focused on general practice commissioning. I urge my hon. Friend’s constituents and others to respond to that before 11 October, which will enable us then to proceed to set out the full details of how general practice-led commissioning will work.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State had a difficult summer, with his plans to scrap free milk for the under-fives being attacked across the spectrum and eventually vetoed by the Prime Minister, but he met the new chair of Unilever, Amanda Sourry, on 21 July. On the following day, Ms Sourry wrote him a letter, some of which is blanked out. She wrote that
“with a clear signal from you, I would be happy to engage with retailers and manufacturers to find resolution on front-of-pack labelling”.
The Department has tried to black out that sentence, perhaps because it shows an unhealthy closeness between the Secretary of State and Unilever. Does the Secretary of State have an opinion on how food should be labelled, and, if so, will he tell the House what it is? Will he tell the House what other areas of food policy he plans to subcontract out to multinational food giants?
Mr Lansley
I hardly know where to begin due to the absurdity of some of the assertions in that question. How does the hon. Lady imagine that we are going to make progress on front-of-pack food labelling, on which her Government never made sufficient progress—there is no consistency on front-of-pack food labelling? This Government and this Parliament have no unilateral power to mandate what front-of-pack food labelling should look like and we have to achieve consensus in Europe and consensus in this country. We must do that with the manufacturers, the retailers, the charities and the health experts. That is precisely why our public health commission, when we were in opposition, brought together all those people around a table for the first time. I intend to create a realistic and effective partnership to deliver improving public health in this country, where her Government failed.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T5. Kettering general is a wonderful hospital but recently its paperwork has got out of control. Some 30 occasional chaplaincy visitors from the local Catholic Church, many of whom are retired, have recently had to complete Criminal Records Bureau checks, employer references and an intrusive personal health questionnaire. Does the Minister agree that if we are to create the big society that the Prime Minister would like us to create, such bureaucracy must be minimised?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
T3. Some 1,800 patients in the Belgrave area of my constituency have been left without their local surgery because it has closed. Will the Minister assure me that despite the scrapping of the primary care trust, the new Belgrave health centre will be built? If he cannot tell me now, it would be very helpful if he could write to me.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but in the absence of notice of that question, I fear that I shall have to tell him that I shall certainly look into that and write to him.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T6. The Minister of State wrote to me on 25 August to say that all future service changes must be led by clinicians and patients. How can it be that, although all the clinicians and patients oppose the downgrading and possible closure of the Ryedale ward of Malton hospital, that can proceed? Will he please use his good offices to block any such change?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
T4. When the Government say that the NHS budget will be ring-fenced, people might assume that whatever cash a hospital gets in this financial year will be matched next financial year. So could the Health Secretary explain why the King’s Mill hospital in my constituency has been told to expect its budget to treat patients next year to fall by 8.2% or £14.9 million?
Mr Lansley
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is probably because that is what the Labour Government’s spending intentions implied. All over the country primary care trusts are telling their hospitals that they can expect a zero increase in tariff and a reduction in activity, and hence a reduction in budget. I am making it clear that we are intending an historic commitment by this coalition Government to increase the resources for the NHS in real terms. That does not mean an increase in real terms for every part of the NHS all the time. It does mean, however, that resources will be realised through efficiency savings and that increase to enable us to improve the service we provide through the NHS and to meet rising demand.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
T8. Is any flexibility available to allow the interim cancer drug fund to review earlier and more speedily adverse National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence decisions—because in certain cases, as we know with Avastin for late-stage bowel cancer, a few months, or even a few weeks, can make a big difference to patients.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have proceeded as rapidly as we possibly can in finding savings this year, so that from 1 October the regional panels of expert clinicians can look at individual cases. It is not a matter of their reviewing NICE decisions; it is a matter of their looking at individual cases that cannot be funded under existing guidance or local decisions, but being able to apply clinical criteria to individual cases using an additional fund.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
T7. Wolverhampton is the 28th most deprived local authority area in the country, resulting in major health inequalities. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that in future funding allocations, levels of deprivation will be taken into account?
Mr Lansley
Yes and more than that. I could make it clear that in the future, we will be moving—not for next year necessarily, but in years beyond, as we will make clear in the public health White Paper—to an explicit allocation of public health resources taking account of relative health outcomes and health inequalities, and those funds will be used to deliver improving public health. At the moment the formula to the NHS may take account of relative deprivation as measured by, for example, access to income support, but the money does not get spent on reducing those health inequalities and on an effective public health strategy. That is why we shall be very clear about separate, ring-fenced, public health resources used, together with local authorities, to deliver an effective public health strategy locally.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Leighton Buzzard is one of the larger towns in the country not to have a community hospital. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me that the wishes of local GPs will be respected in deciding what services the proposed community hospital will have?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Some 36,000 of my constituents, who voted by ballot, and every single GP in both local authorities, all believe that Bassetlaw accident and emergency department should remain a full 24-hour service. Can the Secretary of State conceive of any reason why that might not be the case during this Parliament?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to recognise that one of the commitments of the coalition Government in our programme was to stop the forced closure of accident and emergency departments. I am sure he will take comfort from the commitment of this Government, and from our commitment to increasing resources for the NHS in real terms each year, to enable the services that his constituents and others’ require to continue to be provided and improved.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Information in a parliamentary answer given on 19 July showed that the cost to the NHS of emergency admissions in cases of anaphylaxis has risen by 45% in four years. Will the Minister look at how allergy support services could be enhanced in primary care to reverse the rising trend in emergency cases and in doing so save money and, crucially, lives?
Mr Lansley
Yes I will gladly do that. I have had the privilege and pleasure of visiting the specialist allergy service at my local hospital, Addenbrooke’s, one of a small number across the country. I think it was the House of Lords Select Committee that produced an excellent report on allergy services, and I hope that this is one of those areas where clinical relationships between GPs and hospital specialists will enable both community and specialist services to be improved to meet this need.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Given that 50% of health inequalities are created by tobacco use, will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the targeted smoking cessation programmes in the national health service will survive?
Mr Lansley
We are going to improve the effectiveness of our public health services. As the right hon. Gentleman will know from past debates, I entirely recognise the extreme importance of reducing tobacco use. After the introduction of legislation on smoking in public places, there was a reduction in prevalence, but at the moment there is no continuing further reduction, especially among manual workers and young people; we need to achieve that reduction, and we will continue to look at measures to do that. We will say more about the issue in our public health White Paper.
Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Many of my constituents, and indeed many practitioners, have grave concerns about the pending closure of Winchester ambulance station. Will the Minister assure the House that no changes to static ambulance bases will take place until local consortiums, when they are formed, are happy that a suitable alternative is in place?
Mr Lansley
I am aware of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well aware of my view: we want to involve general practitioners much more in commissioning out-of-hours services. I will undertake to look at what is proposed by the primary care trusts in north London and see whether it is consistent with the development that we are looking for in the White Paper.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
If local GPs fail to support reconfiguration plans en masse—if, say, 97% fail to do so—what would be the Secretary of State’s response?
Mr Lansley
As I said in response to a previous question, one of the four criteria that I set out on 21 May was that reconfigurations must have the support of local general practitioners as the future commissioners of services. To that extent, a reconfiguration that did not have the support of local general practices would not be able to meet that test.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
What discussions, if any, has the Secretary of State had with the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland about making Avastin and other specialist cancer drugs available on the same terms and conditions under which they are available to people who suffer from cancer here on the mainland? Will those drugs be made available in Northern Ireland under the same terms and conditions?
Mr Lansley
I have had very helpful and productive conversations with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, but I have to say that they did not include that particular subject. Of course, decisions on the availability of medicines in Northern Ireland are a devolved matter, but I should be perfectly happy to take account of those issues when we next talk.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
One year on from the implementation of the European working time directive, there is evidence that patient care is suffering. Handovers have been inadequate in some cases, and junior doctors’ training time has been reduced. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will take action to allow some acute specialities to opt out of the European working time directive?
Mr Lansley
Yes. I am very clear that, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, we need to take the European working time directive back to the European Union. We need to discuss it again. We need to go to the European Union with the intention of maintaining the opt-out and of giving ourselves, not least in the health context, the flexibility that we lack, so that junior doctors, in particular, have the capacity to undertake the training that they need. It is not that we want to go back to the past, when there were excessive hours—100-hour weeks and so on—but we want junior doctors to be confident that they will get the training that they require in the period allocated for training.
Cancer Drugs
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
In 2008, Professor Sir Mike Richards, National Cancer Director, was asked to lead a review of the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage and provide a report. Professor Richard’ report has been in the Library of the House and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.
I would like to thank Professor Richards and his advisory group for their work on the report. They have undertaken a thorough review, which represents the most comprehensive analysis yet of the extent and potential causes of international variations in medicines usage.
The report explores the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage across 14 countries, including the United Kingdom, for a range of conditions and diseases. The report indicates that there are wide international variations in usage of most of the drugs included in the study. Although a few countries emerge as generally high or low users, there does not appear to be a uniform pattern across disease areas.
As with most of the countries studied, usage levels in the UK appear mixed when looking across the range of conditions. It does however show high levels of use in some important areas, for example of lipid-regulating drugs which are helping to prevent many deaths from cardiovascular disease.
One of the more concerning findings in the report relates to our usage of newer cancer drugs, which lags behind that of most of the countries studied. The findings in this report make it even more important that Government do everything it can to remove barriers to doctors prescribing the cancer drugs they think will help their NHS patients. In the medium term our plans to introduce value-based medicines pricing in 2014, on expiry of the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, will allow Government to take the initiative on access to new medicines. We will make new medicines available to NHS patients at a price that represents their value, rather than being restricted to recommending against the use of a new drug in the NHS due to the price its manufacturer sets.
However, we also need to act to improve access to these drugs in the meantime. As an interim measure, the coalition agreement set out our plans to establish a cancer drugs fund from April 2011, subject to the spending review outcome. The need for this fund is clearly supported by Professor Richards’ findings, and we will be consulting on our plans for the fund later in the year. But the report underlines the need for action now to help NHS patients access the cancer drugs their doctors think will benefit them.
I am therefore announcing today additional funding of £50 million for this financial year to support improved access to cancer drugs. This funding, which has been found from a review of Department of Health central budgets, will be made available through clinically-led regional panels from October 2010.
This Government are committed to ensuring that cancer patients no longer have to worry about whether they will be able to get the cancer drugs their doctors recommend from the NHS.
NHS White Paper (Supporting Information)
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing two further supporting documents to the national health service White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” (Cm 7881) which was published on 12 July.
The first document, “Regulating Healthcare Providers”, provides further detail on the principles of the policies set out in the White Paper, and seeks views from the public and external partners on some of the questions arising out of them.
The White Paper set out a vision for a national health service centred around the needs of patients, focusing consistently on improving quality of care. One of the fundamental features of the proposals is to free providers from political interference and to establish a stable, transparent regulatory environment.
“Regulating Healthcare Providers” therefore sets out proposals to free providers from central Government controls and to develop Monitor, the current regulator for foundation trusts, as an independent economic regulator for health and adult social care.
Under our proposals, all remaining NHS trusts will become or be part of a foundation trust, free from the state’s operational control and not subject to the Secretary of State’s direction. We will create an environment where staff and organisations enjoy greater freedom and clearer incentives to flourish. All providers should be able to compete on a fair playing field, so that they succeed or fail according to the quality of care for patients and the value they offer the taxpayer.
Monitor will be responsible for regulating all providers to promote efficient, financially sustainable service provision. It will operate independently of Government so that providers have confidence in a stable, rules-based system—without the risk of political interference—to make long-term investments in services. Monitor will have powers to license providers of NHS services and core functions to regulate prices for NHS services, where needed, to promote competition, and to support service continuity.
The document seeks views on a number of questions by 11 October.
Today, I am also publishing the report of the Department’s review of its arm’s-length bodies.
The publication, sets out our proposals for arm's-length bodies in the health and social care sector. These proposals form part of the cross-Government strategy to increase accountability and transparency, and to reduce the number and cost of quangos.
The Government’s proposed reforms of the NHS, set out in “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”, will establish more autonomous institutions, with greater freedoms, clear duties and transparency in their responsibilities to patients. Power will be devolved to the front-line. Liberating the NHS will fundamentally change the role of the Department and those bodies accountable to it. Changes to the arm’s-length body sector must reflect these wider reforms.
There is also an economic imperative for change. The Government have guaranteed that spending on health will increase in real terms in every year of this Parliament and are committed to increasing the proportion of resource available for front-line services, to meet the current financial challenges and the future costs of demographic and technological change. This means that we need to make significant cuts in the costs of health bureaucracy. Over the next four years, the Government will reduce NHS administrative costs by more than 45%, freeing up resources for front-line care.
The review has assessed arm’s-length bodies in light of both the current financial challenges and the strategy for the NHS set out in “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”. Only those functions which need to be carried out a national level to support the Department’s clear objectives should remain in the sector. Functions that are better delivered by other parts of the system should be devolved to the right level, and organisations that carry out these functions should be abolished. Shifting functions from public bodies back into the Department, or to those who are closer to local needs and are independent of the state, will ensure more direct accountability to local people, Parliament and Ministers.
By ensuring that functions are delivered in the right place, the sector will be streamlined to cut costs and remove duplication and unnecessary burdens on the front line. The review will achieve a significant reduction in the number and cost of public bodies.
The Department will impose tight governance and accountability over the cost and scope of its remaining arm’s-length bodies. In future, arm’s-length bodies’ independence will be exercised within the confines of clear and agreed functions. This is in line with the Government’s wider commitment to increase transparency and accountability.
The report details the proposals for each of the Department’s bodies. Where changes require primary legislation, these will be enacted through legislation which will be introduced in this Parliament.
Proposals for the General Social Care Council (GSCC), the regulatory body for social workers, are included in the report. My predecessor issued a written ministerial statement on 4 November 2009, Official Report, column 41WS about the publication of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence’s (CHRE) report and recommendations on the General Social Care Council (GSCC) function relating to conduct. As part of its response to CHRE’s report the previous Administration announced that the GSCC would report on its progress to Ministers at the end of March. This report has now been received and is published today.
While the GSCC has made good progress over preceding months, the reality is that the costs of maintaining an independent regulator for social workers are prohibitive and we therefore propose to transfer the function of regulating social workers to the Health Professions Council, which will accordingly be renamed to reflect its remit.
These publications will be of interest to anyone working in the health and social care sector, to taxpayers, and to people who use health and social care services.
Copies of today’s publications have been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.
“Regulating Healthcare Providers” can be viewed at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_117782
The report of the arm’s length bodies review can be viewed at:
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_117691
NHS White Paper Consultation
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing two further supporting documents to the national health service White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”, which was published on 12 July. The documents have been placed in the Library, and copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote office. The documents are also available at: www.dh.gov.uk/liberatingtheNHS.
The documents, “Commissioning for Patients” and “Local Democratic Legitimacy in Health” provide further detail on the principles of the policies set out in the White Paper, and seek views from the public and external partners on some of the questions arising out of them.
One of the central features of the proposals in the White Paper is to devolve commissioning responsibilities and budgets as far as possible to those who are best placed to act as patients’ advocates and support them in their healthcare choices. “Commissioning for Patients” sets out my intended arrangements for general practitioner (GP) commissioning and the role of the NHS Commissioning Board.
Through our world-renowned system of general practice, GPs and other primary care, professionals are already supporting patients in managing their health, promoting continuity and co-ordination of care, and making referrals to more specialist services. In empowering GP practices to come together in wider groupings, or “consortia”, to commission care on their patients’ behalf and manage NHS resources, we are building on these foundations. We are also empowering primary care clinicians to work more effectively alongside the full range of other health and care professionals and, where appropriate, to work collaboratively to combine their commissioning power and influence. The NHS Commissioning Board will provide overall leadership on commissioning for quality improvement. It will have a duty to ensure comprehensive coverage of consortia and hold them to account for the outcomes they achieve and for their financial performance.
“Local Democratic Legitimacy in Health” is a joint publication between my Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government. It sets out proposals to increase local democratic legitimacy in a way that is consistent with national accountability for a national health service. Local authorities will become responsible for local public health improvement functions. They will have a new role in shaping NHS commissioning activities and a new role promoting integration. Local authorities will lead in assessing the needs of their populations and co-ordinate local strategies to address these needs. This will promote integration and partnership across the NHS, social care, public health and wider services such as housing and disability services. Local HealthWatch organisations, acting as independent consumer champions, will also be funded by and accountable to local authorities. To reinforce local accountability, local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that local HealthWatch are operating effectively, and for putting in place better arrangements if they are not.
The document also outlines how local authorities may choose to work with their partners to implement the arrangements and how the new public and patient involvement and local authority health improvement functions will be taken forward.
Both documents seek views on a number of questions by 11 October.
Commission on the Funding of Care and Support
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have today placed in the Library the terms of reference for the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support. Copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
I am also pleased to announce to the House that Andrew Dilnot will be chairing the commission. There will be two additional Commissioners, Dame Jo Williams and Lord Norman Warner. The commission will also draw on the expertise of two expert independent panels, one comprising academics and the other experts drawn from the financial services industry.
Urgent reform of the social care system is needed and the Government have made clear their commitment and determination to reach a fair and enduring settlement for the system for generations to come. We want a sustainable adult social care system that gives people the support and freedom to lead the life they choose, with dignity.
This announcement follows on from the commitment set out in the coalition agreement to—
“establish a commission on long-term care, to report within a year. The commission will consider a range of ideas, including both a voluntary insurance scheme to protect the assets of those who go into residential care, and a partnership scheme as proposed by Derek Wanless”.
It is my intention to publish a White Paper next year, which will bring together the conclusions of the commission, with the work being led by the Law Commission on creating a single modern statute for social care, and the Government’s vision for social care. This will be followed with legislation to establish a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care in this Parliament.
NHS White Paper Consultation
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing the first of five supporting documents to the NHS White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”, which was published on 12 July. “Transparency in outcomes: a framework for the NHS”, has been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. The document is also available electronically at: www.dh.gov.uk/liberatingtheNHS.
The publication of this document marks the start of a full public consultation on the development of an NHS outcomes framework and fulfils a key commitment made in the White Paper to develop this in partnership with patients, the public and all those working or with an interest in the NHS.
The White Paper set out the coalition Government’s ambition for the NHS to provide among the best outcomes in the world, delivered by empowered and engaged healthcare professionals liberated from central control and political interference.
“Transparency in outcomes: a framework for the NHS” puts forward proposals for a framework that is designed to refocus the efforts and accountabilities running throughout the NHS on improving the health outcomes achieved for patients.
The NHS outcomes framework will include a focused set of national outcomes goals and supporting measures which patients, the public and Parliament will be able to use to judge the overall performance of the NHS. The framework will also provide a mechanism by which the Secretary of State for Health can hold the proposed NHS Commissioning Board to account for the outcomes it is securing for patients through its role in allocating resources and overseeing the commissioning process that, in future, will be led locally by general practitioner consortia.
The consultation document puts forward proposals for a framework structured around five broad outcome domains and seeks views on this structure, the core principles that should underpin the development of the framework as well as the more specific outcome measures that should be included under each domain. The proposed outcome domains are:
Domain 1: Preventing people from dying prematurely.
Domain 2: Enhancing the quality of life for people with long-term conditions.
Domain 3: Helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury.
Domain 4: Ensuring people have a positive experience of care.
Domain 5: Treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.
The consultation period will close on 11 October 2010.
Overseas Doctors (Out-of-hours Services)
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have today laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the House of Commons Health Committee’s report “The use of overseas doctors in providing out-of-hours services: Fifth Report of Session 2009-10” which was published on 8 April 2010.
This Government are committed to ensuring that foreign healthcare professionals are not allowed to work in the national health service unless they have proven their competence and language skills, and we are working with the General Medical Council and others to explore a number of options to put a stop to foreign doctors slipping through the net.
In particular, we plan to explore how the proposed NHS Commissioning Board could oversee a more effective system for undertaking checks on language knowledge of primary care practitioners to address the historic lack of consistency in the application of checks by primary care trusts.
The Government also share the concerns raised by the Committee that since 2004 there have been serious failures in out-of-hours services, both on the part of the Government of the day to secure good value for money from the 2004 reforms and on the part of some primary care trusts to monitor the quality of out-of-hours services effectively since then. This situation has been compounded by a lack of clarity on responsibility between commissioners and providers and little or no integration of out-of-hours care with urgent care.
The Government are committed to providing universal access to high-quality urgent care services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including out-of-hours services. Our vision for urgent care will be to replace the ad hoc unco-ordinated system that has developed in England over the last 13 years.
We will help the public to better understand what urgent care services are available to them by improving information to support choice and accountability and introducing a new single telephone number to provide consistent clinical assessment at point of contact and direct patients to the right service, first time. The proposed new NHS Commissioning Board will also have a role in ensuring that those commissioning out-of-hours services ensure that contracts with out-of-hours providers detail rigorous standards in respect of the recruitment, induction and training that doctors should receive and that there is more effective contract monitoring.
Health Select Committee Report on Social Care
Lord Lansley Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have today laid before Parliament the Government’s response to the Health Select Committee’s report on social care (Cm7884).
We know that urgent reform of the social care system is needed and we are grateful to the Health Select Committee for its report on social care. This is an important contribution to the debate on how to deliver a care and support system which provides much more control to individuals and their carers, reduces the insecurity they and their families face and ensures that people are treated with dignity and respect.
We have made clear our commitment and determination to move on from more than a decade of indecision on how to fund social care, and to reach a fair and enduring settlement for the system for generations to come. We want a sustainable adult social care system that gives people the support and freedom to lead the life they chose, with dignity.
The coalition agreement sets out our commitment to:
“establish a commission on long-term care, to report within a year. The commission will consider a range of ideas, including both a voluntary insurance scheme to protect the assets of those who go into residential care, and a partnership scheme as proposed by Derek Wanless”.
We recognise that how we should fund care and support is a key question for society to face—and one that will inevitably involve difficult choices and difficult trade-offs. But it is a question we can no longer avoid. We are grateful to the Health Select Committee for its interest in this area and will be recommending that the soon to be established Commission on the Funding of Care and Support consider its report, alongside other contributions to the debate.
We will also take decisive steps to accelerate the pace of reform so that older people and disabled people get the care they need and have more choice and control over how their needs are met. Transformation of services should be a key part of how local authorities continue to deliver services effectively and efficiently during a period of fiscal consolidation. As we take critical steps to reduce the deficit, the right response is for the pace of transformation to increase—maximising the performance and penetration of services such as re-ablement, intermediate care and telecare.
Later this year, we will publish a vision for adult social care, including the key next steps on personalisation.
In addition, as a key component of a lasting settlement for the social care system, we will reform the law underpinning adult social care by creating a single modern statute, helping disabled people, older people and carers to understand whether services can or should be provided. We will be working with the Law Commission as they consider their proposals on this work.
We will bring together the conclusions of the Law Commission and the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, with our vision, into a White Paper in 2011, with legislation following to establish a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care in this Parliament.
As a coalition Government, established with the aim of working together in the national interest, we have an unprecedented political opportunity to deliver reform. Care and support is a good example of where we need pragmatic, sustainable proposals to build a new and lasting settlement.