Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that when I appointed the trust special administrator and set a timetable for his work, I specifically added 30 days on an exceptional basis to the timetable for the production of his first report, one of the exceptional reasons being that an accelerated consultation should take place locally on the future of Orpington hospital.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I shall give the Secretary of State one last chance on rationing.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to listen carefully to what I am about to say. Yesterday, he promised action to stop the restricting of cataract operations for financial reasons, if given evidence. How about this example? NHS Sussex has imposed severe restrictions that contradict the Department’s own guidance, “Action on Cataracts”, and this has seen the number of operations in Sussex fall from 5,646 in 2010 to 4,215 in 2011. Does the Secretary of State consider that fair to older people, and will he now take the action his Department has promised?

[Mr Lansley]

I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman many times, as has the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), that it is not acceptable and we will not allow NHS commissioners to impose blanket bans. I will gladly take note of and investigate that example, but I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me with a document that purported to contain a series of examples from across the country, most of which turned out to be fictional. I shall respond in writing about NHS Sussex and put a copy in the Library of the House, but, as I have made clear, we, unlike our predecessors, will not accept any blanket ban on treatment. Any treatment must be clinically determined in the interests of patients.

[Andy Burnham]

Well, the right hon. Gentleman is accepting it, and he continues to dispute my evidence, but what does he say to the president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, who said yesterday of cataract restrictions:

“They are arbitrary and are a response to financial pressures, not clinical needs”?

The reason for the Government’s denial is that the financial pressures are greater than they care to admit. The figures released by the Treasury yesterday confirmed that he and the Government have now cut the NHS budget for two years running, but they also reveal something else: another real-terms cut planned for 2013-14. Do not their flagship promises on NHS spending now lie in shreds, and will this Prime Minister not be for ever remembered as the man who cut the NHS, not the deficit?

[Mr Lansley]

It is staggering, isn’t it? In 2010-11, the NHS budget was set by the right hon. Gentleman, not by us. The final accounts for 2011-12 will not be published until the autumn. I wish he would just get up at the Dispatch Box and admit that over the course of this Parliament the coalition Government will increase the NHS budget in England by 1.8% in real terms, which is £12.5 billion in cash, whereas the Wales Audit Office has said that a Labour Government in Wales will cut the NHS budget over the same period by 10% in real terms.

National Health Service

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman should not interrupt from a sedentary position. I am answering the question. Members are interested in this. When I went to the pay review body, I made it clear that, in my view, we could achieve that through negotiations on the “Agenda for Change”. That continues to be my view, and the south-west pay consortium makes it clear in its documentation that it supports such a negotiation. It is right to pursue such a negotiation nationally and for local pay flexibilities to be used in the national pay framework. That is what most NHS employers do, with the exception of Southend.

I have made it clear, as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has, that we are not proposing any reductions in pay as a consequence. I do not believe they are necessary or desirable in achieving the efficiency challenge.

[Andy Burnham]

I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. Is he therefore overruling the south-west consortium?

[Mr Lansley]

No, because the south-west consortium has made no such proposal. Its document is clear: it wants the “Agenda for Change” national pay framework to give it the necessary flexibilities. My view is that we should do that, and I hope that the Opposition, along with the trade unions and the staff side, will support it. As a consequence, no proposal for the reduction of pay or the dismissal and re-engagement of staff is, in my view, desirable or necessary. Indeed, when I went to the pay review body, I made the point that I did not believe reduction of pay in the NHS to be necessary.

Let me conclude. There was a lot that those of us in the Chamber did not hear from Opposition Members. Much of it was in the annual report that I published just two weeks ago—waiting times below what they were at the time of the last election; the number of people waiting beyond 18 weeks cut by 50,000; the number waiting beyond a year reduced by nearly two thirds; infection rates in hospitals at their lowest ever level; cancer waiting times met; ambulance trusts all meeting the category A8 standard; 95.8% of patients seen, treated and discharged from A and E within four hours; 92% of in-patients and 95% of out-patients saying that their care was good, very good or excellent; and patients across the NHS saying that they support the NHS and believe the care they received to have been excellent. On that basis, the House should reject the motion as unfair in its characterisation of the NHS and wrong in its denigration of the NHS.

Question put.

NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State today presents his first annual report—an annual report on a lost year in the NHS. Just when the NHS needed stability to focus all its energy on the money, what did he do? He pulled the rug from underneath it, with a reorganisation no one wanted and that this Prime Minister promised would never happen.

In fact, we have had not one, but two lost years in the NHS, as this Secretary of State has obsessed on structures and inflicted an ideological experiment on the NHS that made sense to him but, sadly, to no one else. It was his decision to allow the dismantling of existing structures before new ones were in place, which has led to a loss of financial grip at local level in the NHS. He mentioned QIPP savings. The truth is that two-thirds of NHS acute trusts—65%—are reported to have fallen behind on their efficiency targets. So we see temporary ward and accident and emergency closures, a quarter of walk-in centres closing across England, panic plans to close services sprouting up wherever we look, and crude, random rationing across the NHS, with 125 separate treatments—including cataracts, hip replacements and knees—being restricted or stopped altogether by one primary care trust or another. This is an NHS drifting dangerously towards trouble, or, in the words of the chief executive of the NHS Confederation,

“a supertanker heading for an iceberg”.

Let us remember that even before the added complexity of today’s mandate, the Secretary of State has already saddled his new board with an Act of Parliament that even the chair of that board, whom he appointed, calls “unintelligible”. Listening to the Secretary of State today, one could not but conclude that he cannot be looking at the same NHS as the head of the NHS Confederation. The statistics he just reeled off do not include the people who give up waiting in A and E, who have their operation cancelled, who cannot get a GP appointment for days or who cannot get into hospital in the first place because his Government are restricting access to operations. Perhaps that explains why the year that he hails as a great success was the same year that saw the biggest ever fall in public satisfaction with the national health service according to the British social attitudes survey.

Let me challenge the Secretary of State on this growing gap between Ministers’ statements and people’s real experience of the NHS. He has said that there will be no rationing by cost, but I have news for him: it is happening on his watch, right across the system, with a whole host of restrictions on important treatments and a postcode lottery running riot. Where is the instruction in the draft mandate to stop it and deliver on the promise that he and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), made to patients? It is not there.

Let me turn to bureaucracy and targets. First, the Government said that they would scrap the four-hour A and E and 18-week targets; then they brought them back. Now they have gone further and adopted Labour’s guarantees, but they have gone even further today and have added a whole new complex web of outcomes and performance indicators for the NHS. The NHS needs simplicity and clarity, but what it has received today from this Secretary of State is a dense document with 60 outcome indicators grouped within five domains. I hope it is clear to him, because it will not be clear to anyone else. Will he treat the House again to his explanation of the difference between an outcome indicator and a target? The fact is there is not one and he is loading a whole new set of targets and burdens on to a NHS that is already struggling to cope with the challenges it is facing.

It will not have escaped people’s notice that today the Secretary of State was silent on the biggest issue of all: the unfolding crisis in adult social care. Out there in the real world, councils are not coping, services are collapsing and that is placing intolerable pressure on hospitals. He promised a White Paper soon on service change, but nothing on funding. Has he given up on the Dilnot proposals and the challenge of finding a fairer and more sustainable funding system?

Before we let the Secretary of State go today, the House needs to ask to whom this mandate is being given. We are witnessing the democratic responsibility and accountability to this House for the organisation that matters more to our constituents than any other being outsourced and handed over to an unelected and unaccountable board.

Another major announcement is taking place today on the review of the arrangements for children’s heart surgery. It will not have escaped people’s notice, however, that the Secretary of State did not mention that review in his statement. He said that Ministers are stepping back, and I think people in this House know what that means—it is now nothing to do with him. All these changes will take place and he will not be responsible.

What assurances can the Secretary of State give to right hon. and hon. Members that his new board will listen to their concerns? Who are the people on that board? With trademark catastrophic timing, we learn that he has given a leading role in the running of the NHS to—yes—the vice-chair of Barclays, none other than Mr Diamond’s right-hand man and someone who has given £106,000 in donations to the Conservative party. If that does not sum up this Government, I do not know what does.

We know the real mandate that the Secretary of State has given his new board—and that is a mandate for privatisation. He promised it would not happen, but it is happening with community services being outsourced. No wonder there is a crisis of leadership, with one third of directors of public health not planning to transfer to local authorities. Is it not the simple truth that the Secretary of State inherited a successful, self-confident NHS and, in just two years, has reduced it to a service that is demoralised, destabilised and fearful of the future? The man who promised to listen to doctors has completely ignored them, and now they are calling for his resignation. Despite all his claims today, the supertanker is still heading towards an iceberg. He gave us a new mandate when what we really needed was a change of direction and a change of personnel.

[Mr Lansley]

At no point did the shadow Secretary of State express any appreciation for what the staff of the NHS have achieved in the past year. A party political rant populated with most of his misconceptions and poorly based arguments does not get him anywhere.

The right hon. Gentleman went around the country trying to drum up something he could throw at us about things that he believed were going wrong in the NHS. Do you know what he ended up with, Mr Speaker? He ended up by saying the NHS was rationing care. What was the basis for that? That parts of the NHS have restrictions on weight-loss surgery, because people have to be obese before they have access to it. That is meaningless. I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State this morning, and went through his so-called health check. There is no such ban on surgery as he claims. Time and again, he says, “Oh, they are rationing.” They are not, because last year, the co-operation and competition panel produced a report that showed where there had been blanket bans on NHS services under a Labour Government. We introduced measures to ensure that that would not happen in future across the service. Not only is he not giving the NHS credit for the achievements that I listed in detail in my statement but he is now pretending that the NHS is somehow in chaos or financial trouble. It is complete nonsense. Across the NHS, only three primary care trusts out of 154 were in deficit at the end of the year. The cumulative surplus across all the PCTs and strategic health authorities is £1.6 billion carried forward into this financial year.

That means that the NHS begins 2012-13 in a stronger financial place than anyone had any right to expect, because it is delivering better services more effectively, with GP referrals reduced, and reduced growth in the number of patients attending emergency departments. The right hon. Gentleman asked, “What about patients who leave A and E without being seen?” Under the Labour Government, no one ever measured whether patients left A and E without being seen. For the first time, we are measuring that, and we publish the results in the A and E quality indicators. There was a variation between about 0.5% and 11% of patients leaving without being seen when we first published that, but since then the variation has reduced. The average number has gone down, and it is now at 3%, so he ought to know his facts before he stands up at the Dispatch Box and begins to make accusations. We published those facts for the first time.

I will not reiterate the A and E target, because I mentioned it in the statement, but 96% of patients are seen within four hours in A and E. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw all those absurd propositions that the NHS is not delivering. He should get up when next he can and express appreciation to the NHS for what it is achieving. Patients do so: last year, 92% of in-patients and 95% of out-patients thought that they had good or excellent care from the NHS, which is as high as in any previous year. That is what patients feel. Staff should be proud of what they achieve in the NHS, and the Labour party should be ashamed of itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do believe that and the legislation requires it of clinical commissioning groups and health and wellbeing boards. The relationship being built up between clinical leadership in the NHS and democratic leadership through health and wellbeing boards is an instrumental part of delivering that integrated care.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The year 2011 saw the biggest ever fall in public satisfaction with the national health service. It was also the right hon. Gentleman’s first full year in office. Does he think that those two facts are in any way related?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I do not. The right hon. Gentleman might also care to note that the same survey demonstrated a lower level of satisfaction with the NHS in Wales than in England, but let us leave that to one side.

That survey of 1,000 people asked whether they were satisfied with the way in which the NHS was being run. I was not satisfied. We were in the midst of reform, and we are changing how the NHS is run. Government Members were demonstrating to the public that improvement is necessary and possible in the NHS and that we should not be satisfied with the situation. What is more interesting is that a survey of 70,000 people that we published today demonstrates that 92% of the public—an unprecedentedly high level—who received care from the NHS said that it was good, very good or excellent.

[Andy Burnham]

How out of touch can he get, Mr Speaker? I would have suggested some work shadowing on the NHS front line to get him back in touch, but I forgot that he cannot go into a hospital without a police escort these days. Let me tell him why satisfaction with A and E is down: he lowered the target and missed it repeatedly, leaving nearly a quarter of a million people waiting longer than four hours. Today we have found out why his waiting list statistics do not match people’s real experience: managers are changing clinical criteria and removing people from lists. If he wants to regain people’s trust, why not start today by ordering an immediate inquiry and ending this unacceptable practice of waiting list recategorisation?

[Mr Lansley]

I spend more time in hospitals than the right hon. Gentleman has hot dinners, I suspect—[Interruption.] The weekend before last, I spent two days in hospitals and I did not require any policemen to be there.

Let me make it clear. In A and E, we have 96.6% of patients being seen, treated and discharged within four hours. More to the point, the latest data on A and E show that the average time spent there came down from 57 minutes to 49. On the question of referral to treatment, we inherited more than 209,000 patients across the NHS who were waiting beyond 18 weeks for their treatment. According to the latest data, that figure went down by nearly 50,000. We are delivering for patients better and improving care. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would get on his feet—perhaps he will do it now—thank the NHS and congratulate it on the improving care, rather than trying to find the one thing wrong with it—

Health Transition Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

The Deputy Leader of the House said that

“it would also be right to publish as much of what is contained in the risk register as possible”.

He said that this week—that the risk register should have been published. How many more Ministers and coalition MPs do not agree with the Cabinet’s decision?

Most worrying, however, is the confusion over freedom of information policy. The Secretary of State, in his statement earlier this week, said:

“If such risk registers were regularly disclosed, it is likely that their form and content would change”.

But later in the same statement he said that this was an “exceptional case”. Which is it? Do the Government now have a blanket ban on the publication of any risk register, even if ordered to do so by a judge, or was this an exceptional case? If it was the latter, how did it meet the exceptional criteria that Government rules require? We need answers, as again this Government are breaking the precedent set by the last Government. Following a ruling from the Information Commissioner, we released the Heathrow third runway risk register. We never called for the publication of all risk registers, but said that each case should be judged on its merits. Inconveniently for the Minister and the Conservative party, that ruling makes a clear differentiation between the strategic risk register on the one hand and the transition risk register on the other, as I have argued all the way through this discussion.

The Secretary of State’s argument today hinges on the “safe space” argument—he says that if we did not have a safe space, it may change future risk registers. Is he aware that the tribunal considered that point in detail but concluded that there was no evidence presented to us that the release of the Heathrow risk register had a chilling effect on their use by Government? Was the Secretary of State’s argument not tested in court and did it not fail in court? Is he not now showing a blatant disregard for the law? He said today that it “is a matter of principle and not a matter of law”, but it is a matter of principle and of law—freedom of information is the principle and the Freedom of Information Act is the law. He should be following the law that enacts that principle, but he has taken a step away from it today.

The Treasury website still has this statement on risk policy:

“Government will make available its assessments of risks that affect the public, how it has reached its decisions, and how it will handle the risk. It will also do so where the development of new policies poses a potential risk to the public.”

I ask again: if that is no longer the Government’s policy on risk management, when will it be removed from the Treasury’s website?

In conclusion, the Government are in disarray on many fronts. The NHS belongs to the people of this country, not Ministers. If Ministers cannot be open about the risks that they are taking with the NHS, they should not be taking those risks. That is a simple principle.

The truth is that this has been a cowardly decision from a Government on the run who are now too frightened to face up to the consequences of their own incompetence. The real reason for the veto is that publication would have shown that the warnings from doctors, nurses, midwives and patients were echoed in private by civil servants but the Government just ignored them. This is a Cabinet cover-up of epic proportions—a Government closing ranks and covering each other’s backs because they know that the public would never forgive them if they could see the scale of the risks that the Government are taking with the national health service.

[Mr Lansley]

Most of that was synthetic indignation. I am really surprised; the right hon. Gentleman cannot have read any of the review of the risk register that I published on Tuesday. That set out, in detail, all the risk areas carried in the risk register and the mitigating actions that have been taken. There is in no sense any area of risk identified 18 months ago that has not been put into the public domain in a proper form—one that reflects not only the character of those risks, but how those risks have been subsequently addressed.

The right hon. Gentleman is completely confused about the issue. The point of the veto was to confirm that it was not in the public interest for the risk register in December 2010 to be published in relation to the November 2010 document. That point was made very clearly. Acting as we did was not in any sense above the law; it was absolutely in accordance with the law. It is in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and with the structure of the management of risk. For the further clarification of the House, on Tuesday I published the risk management strategy associated with the transition programme, so the right hon. Gentleman can see that it is exactly in line with how the Government manage such risks.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our intention to publish the risk register. We will publish it at a point when it would not prejudice the exemption for officials for the formulation and development of policy. There will come a time when it is appropriate to do so, when doing so will not prejudice that exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.

The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to suggest that no evidence was presented to the first-tier tribunal relating to the potentially damaging effect of publication under these circumstances. As the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell made those risks very clear to the tribunal. Who is better placed than him to say that? He must know that in another place, during debates on this precise issue of publication and relevance to the legislation, other Cabinet Secretaries and Members clearly stated their view that the publication of the transition risk register would run that risk.

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking directly contrary to his own view. When he was a Minister, he said in relation to a request for publication of a departmental risk register:

“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]

He is making an absolutely spurious distinction between the transition register and the strategic register. [Interruption.] It is no good him shouting. The overlap between the two registers and the character of the formulation and development of policy—

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

No. I have been listening to the strictures from the Chair, and I want to get into my speech so that Back-Bench colleagues have a chance to contribute.

That takes us straight to the heart of the predicament in which we find ourselves. There is huge concern in the country about the Bill, but the Government and Parliament—

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will in a moment.

There is huge concern in the country about the Bill, but the Government and Parliament are seen simply not to be listening. I give way to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he might prove us wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but before we move beyond that point will he confirm that Dr Chand is an adviser to the Labour party, which inspired the petition? Further, given that Dr Chand has called on the British Medical Association to take strike action against the Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman share that view, or will he disown him?

[Andy Burnham]

Dr Chand is not an adviser to the Labour party, and the Secretary of State, in seeking to inject that party political note so early on in today’s debate and to claim that the petition of 170,000 people is a political petition, continues, it suggests to me, to misread the mood of this country on his unnecessary Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Let us try this one. For the first time the Bill introduces in clause 3 a duty that embeds the need to act to reduce inequalities firmly within the health system. After 13 years of widening health inequalities under Labour, surely he cannot be against that—or is he? No. Well, what about clinically led commissioning, with doctors and nurses who are responsible for our care given the leadership role in designing services? We heard earlier about one CCG, but 75 leaders of clinical commissioning groups wrote to The Times a fortnight ago. Let me quote them, because it is instructive of what is happening. They said:

“Since the…Bill was announced, we have personally seen more collaboration, enthusiasm and accepted responsibility from our GP colleagues, engaged patients and other NHS leaders than through previous ‘NHS re-organisations’”.

They continued:

“Putting clinicians in control of commissioning has allowed us to concentrate on outcomes through improving quality, innovation and prevention”—

precisely the things that the NHS needs for the future.

Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Oh, yes, we can do GP commissioning”, but let us recall that in 2005, practice-based commissioning was in the Labour manifesto, and that in 2006, he said he was in favour of it. He said that he was

“introducing practice-based commissioning. That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area”—[Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 861.]

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way in moment. The right hon. Gentleman said he was in favour of practice-based commissioning. In 2010, he was the Secretary of State and was in charge of the manifesto, yet practice-based commissioning disappeared out of the Labour manifesto —it was not there at all. After the election, he pops up and says, “Oh, we are in favour of it again”. The truth is that practice-based commissioning was always the right idea: the Labour Government did not do it; the primary care trusts suppressed it. The Bill makes it possible for clinical commissioning groups to take responsibility and for doctors and nurses to design and deliver better services. Because of this Bill, it will happen—and it will not be suppressed by a top-down bureaucracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I made the Secretary of State an offer in my opening remarks. I said I would work with him to introduce his vision of clinically led commissioning, but he seems strangely silent about that and is pursing a very partisan tone. Will he confirm that he could introduce GP-led commissioning without any need for legislation—and without all the upheaval that is coming with his reorganisation?

[Mr Lansley]

The short answer to that is no. If one wishes to arrive at a place where the clinical commissioning groups have responsibility for budgets and proper accountability—including democratic accountability for what they do—legislation is required to get there. That is why we are putting legislation in place to make it happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her initiative in bringing doctors, dentists and nurses together to have that conversation. I really appreciated it, and I thought that it illustrated exactly what I have found—that, although not everybody in the room agreed with the Bill—[Laughter]—many did. Contrary to what I see on the Labour Benches, they all wanted to design better services for patients. They cared about patients and engaged in a proper debate about how to achieve that.

I am still trying to find out what it is in the Bill that the right hon. Member for Leigh is against. Is it the fact that the Bill strengthens the NHS constitution? He should be proud of that; he introduced it. For the first time, however, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to have regard to it and the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups to promote it. He is not against that, I presume.

What about the fact that, for the first time, the NHS Commissioning Board and commissioners will have a duty to promote integration throughout health and social care? Is the right hon. Gentleman against integrated care? I do not know. Let me try another question. What about the prohibition in clauses 146, 22 and 61 of discrimination in favour of private providers, which is in legislation for the first time? The right hon. Gentleman may be against that, because when his party was in office, that is what the Government did. They discriminated in favour of private sector providers, and we ended up with £250 million being spent on operations that never took place and the NHS being paid more for operations when it was not even allowed to bid for the work.

What about the creation of a strong statutory voice for patients through HealthWatch? The Labour Government destroyed the community health councils, they destroyed patient forums, and they left local involvement networks neutered. When they were in office, they were pretty dismissive of a strong patient voice. Well, we on the Government Benches are not, and the Bill will establish that patient voice. Is the right hon. Gentleman against all trusts becoming foundation trusts? The Bill will make that happen, and will support it—oh, no, I forgot: according to the Labour party manifesto, Labour wanted all trusts to become foundation trusts.

Let us keep moving through the Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman against directly engaging local government in the commissioning of health services, integrating health and social care, and leading population health—public health—improvement plans? I ask the question not least because Labour local authorities throughout England are in favour of that. They want to improve the health of the people whom they represent. Is the right hon. Gentleman against local democratic accountability? The list could go on. Is he against the provision of a regulator—Monitor—whose duty is to protect the interests of patients by promoting quality, stopping anti-competitive practices that could harm patients, supporting the integration of services, and securing the continuity of services? Is he against that? It is in the coalition agreement, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is against it or not, because he does not say.

Is the right hon. Gentleman against statutory backing for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to support its work on quality? I do not know; we have not heard. Is he against developing the tariff so that it pays for quality and outcomes, not for activity? He knows that that has to happen, and he knows that it has been the right thing to do for the best part of a decade, but we have no idea whether he is against it now.

I cannot discover what the right hon. Gentleman is actually against. He sits there and says that he is against the Bill, but he is not against anything that is in the Bill. He is against the Bill because he has literally made up what he claims it says. He says that it is about privatisation—

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

All right, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman one more time. Come on, then: let us find out what he is against.

[Andy Burnham]

I will tell the Secretary of State what I am against. I am against the rewriting of the entire legal structure of the national health service to plant market forces at the centre of the system, and to pit doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. That is what I am against, it is what 170,000 people signed a petition against, and it is what the overwhelming consensus of health professionals is against. Would the Secretary of State not do well to listen to them for once?

[Mr Lansley]

So now we know, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is sheer invention. There is nothing in the Bill that creates a free-for-all. There is nothing in it that creates a market of that kind. The Bill means competition for quality, not price. It gives patients choice—and the Labour party’s manifesto was in favour of giving patients choice. Competition is not being introduced to the NHS by the Bill; it is being channelled in the interests of patients to support quality throughout the NHS.

The Opposition talk about privatisation. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), there is nothing in the Bill that allows any privatisation of NHS services. There is nothing in it that promotes such a privatisation.

The left-leaning papers talk about privatisation at Hinchingbrooke hospital because Circle is an independent mutual organisation. That is interesting, because the process for the franchising out of the management of Hinchingbrooke was started by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State. So there we are: the only secret Tory plan that Labour can find turns out to be a Labour plan.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When Labour Members talk about the private sector in the NHS, they leave out of account the fact that not only did they give the private sector a sweetheart deal to get it into the independent sector treatment centres, but they have left us with 102 hospitals that were built by the private sector and £67 billion of debt to the NHS. They wandered around the country saying, “Look how we’re spending all your money to build all these new hospitals,” but they did not spend the money to build the new hospitals. They have left the NHS to have to deal with it now, which is why I am having to support hospitals that have unsustainable private finance initiative debt that the right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues did not deal with.

What do we have? We have policies that the right hon. Gentleman disowns, and we have nothing to replace them with. We have political opportunism, distortions dressed up as arguments, and a shameful campaign to scare people about a Bill that, in reality, is about strengthening the NHS for the benefit of patients.

Of course, if we want to see what Labour would do, we only have to look at the situation in Wales. I have to hand a Wales Audit Office bar chart; I shall hold it up so Opposition Members can see it. One bar shows rising real-terms expenditure on the NHS in England, and the blue bar shows rising real-terms expenditure on the NHS in Scotland, while the green bar shows the rate for Northern Ireland, where the rise is lower. Another bar, however, shows a very large real-terms cut in NHS spending in Labour-run Wales. Labour in Wales did not just agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be “irresponsible” to increase NHS spending; Labour in Wales went further, and cut spending.

In order to see the result of that, we must look at performance. In England, 91% of patients are seen and treated within 18 weeks, compared with just 68% in Wales. In England, only 1.4% of patients waited over six weeks for diagnostic tests; in Wales, 29% waited over six weeks. In Wales, Labour says it wants to insulate the NHS against reform. It ought to adopt it, however, because all that is happening in Wales is that the Labour party is, once again, putting politics before patients.

It is patients who should be at the heart of the NHS —patients and those who care for them. This Bill is simply the support to a far more important set of changes, which make shared decision-making with patients the norm across the NHS, which bring clinical leadership to the forefront of the design and delivery of health and care services, which make local government central to planning for health and care, which strengthen the patient voice, and under which the NHS is open about the results we achieve and how to improve those results so we genuinely match the best in the world. We will continue to work with the royal colleges, and others with an interest in the future of the NHS, to implement our plans, so that we provide the best possible care for patients. The right hon. Gentleman’s motion and speech gave no credit to the NHS for what it is achieving, but I will.

We are proud of the services we deliver for patients: the lowest ever number of patients waiting over six months for treatment—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like to listen to this, but it is the reality. Average time spent waiting for treatment is lower than at the last election. The number of patients waiting over a year for treatment has more than halved since the election. MRSA and C. difficile are at their lowest ever levels. There are more diagnostic tests—up by 300,000 over a year. There is more planned care, and there are fewer unplanned emergency admissions to hospital. Some 11,800 patients have benefited from the cancer drugs fund, and 990,000 more people have had access to NHS dentistry, while mixed-sex accommodation is down by 95%.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No, because I am going to tell the right hon. Gentleman what he did not admit. Reform is going ahead. We are delivering efficiencies across the NHS.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Lansley]

All right, I will give way, but the right hon. Gentleman might like to explain why in the year before the election the administration costs of the NHS rose by 23% and he added more than £320 million to the administration costs of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, but in the year since, we have cut those costs. Absolutely contrary to what he said—because he was completely wrong—we are on track to deliver the Nicholson challenge. We delivered £2.5 billion in savings in the first six months of this year, having delivered £4.3 billion in savings during the course of the last financial year. Come on: explain that one.

[Andy Burnham]

I should just point out that the Secretary of State is trading on the successful legacy he inherited from Labour: the lowest ever waiting lists; the highest ever patient satisfaction. Let me leave that to one side, however. We on the Opposition Benches have noticed that he has not once mentioned his tribunal defeat on the NHS risk register, and all the achievements he just reeled off are at risk, are they not, because of this misguided reorganisation? I ask him to answer this point today: will he now comply with the ruling of the Information Tribunal, publish this risk register today, and let the public know the full truth about what he is doing to their national health service?

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Health and Social Care Bill following a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to MPs and peers and the Government’s response.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I am glad to have this opportunity again to set out the purposes of the Health and Social Care Bill. It will give patients more information and choice, so that they can share in decision-making about their care. It empowers front-line doctors and nurses to lead the delivery of care for their patients. It cuts out two tiers of bureaucracy and strengthens the voice of patients and the role of local government in integrating services and strengthening public health.

The values of the Bill are simple: putting patients first, trusting doctors and nurses, focusing on results for patients and maintaining the founding values of the NHS. We are constantly looking to reinforce those values, strengthening the NHS to meet the challenges it faces. We know change is essential; we will not let the NHS down by blocking change. Throughout the development and progress of this Bill, we have engaged extensively with NHS staff, the public, and parliamentarians.

The Health and Social Care Bill is the most scrutinised public Bill in living memory—[Interruption.] With over 200 hours of debate between the two Chambers and 35 days in Committee, we have ensured that Members and peers have had every opportunity to examine, understand and amend the Bill to—[Interruption.]

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We have made this legislation better and stronger. We have made significant changes to the Bill, including in response to the NHS Future Forum’s work and we have been open to any further changes that would improve or clarify the Bill. For example, so far in the Lords, the Government have accepted amendments tabled by a number of Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Baroness Williams wrote to their Liberal Democrat colleagues explaining their support for the Bill, with those changes and some further amendments they wish to see. They said, for example, how we must

“rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS”.

I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill is about quality, not competition on price. It will not permit any NHS organisation to be taken over by the private sector. It will put patients’ interests first. The Bill does not permit any extension of charging, and care will be free, based on need. Where the doctors and nurses on the ground know that competition is in the best interests of their patients—where it is based entirely on the quality of the care and treatment provided and not in any way on the price of that care and treatment—then competition can play an important role in driving up standards throughout the NHS.

We will not see a market free-for-all or a “US-style” insurance system in this country. I believe in the national health service. I am a passionate supporter of our NHS, and that is why I understand the passionate debate it arouses. It is also why I resent those Opposition Members who seek to misrepresent the NHS, its current achievements and its future needs. We—and I do mean all of us on the Government Benches—are using the debates in the Lords further to reassure all those who care about the NHS. I am grateful for this chance to reassure all my hon. Friends regarding the positive and beneficial effects of debate in the other place and about the work we are all doing to secure a positive future for the NHS.

[Andy Burnham]

On Friday, the Prime Minister promised there would be no more amendments, and yesterday lunch time the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said that the whole Government backed the Bill as it stood, but hours later the Deputy Prime Minister called for changes to a flagship Bill that he has supported all the way. The Government appear to be in complete disarray—or perhaps this was pre-agreed coalition choreography for the Deputy Prime Minister to save face. Either way, this House is entitled to ask, “What is going on?” The NHS matters too much for us to allow it to be carved up in the unelected House in cosy coalition deals, so we are grateful, Mr Speaker, that you have brought Ministers here today to start providing some answers.

First, on the process, will the Secretary of State tell the House when he was first made aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter? Was he consulted about its contents in advance and did he consent to the apparent change of policy or was he overruled by the Deputy Prime Minister? Who is in charge of health policy? Is anyone in charge?

Secondly, on policy, will the Secretary of State update the House on the precise detail of the changes that the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking in the five areas he identifies? For instance, we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister, having previously defended the 49% private patient income cap for foundation trusts, now wants “additional safeguards”. What are those safeguards? Are the changes still under discussion or do they now represent Government policy? Yesterday, the Liberal Democrats played up the changes, but the Secretary of State’s Department has dismissed them as minor. Is his view the same as ours that the amendments do not affect the substance of his Bill but rather are cosmetic changes designed to make the Deputy Prime Minister look good in advance of his spring conference?

The Prime Minister has been clear: this Bill is about competition at the heart of the health service. The Deputy Prime Minister has supported it all the way. Are not these just empty gestures designed to save face? This is a bad Bill that cannot be amended. Last week, the president of the Lib Dems spoke for his party when he admitted that the Bill should have been dropped. Does that not explain what this posturing is all about? In their heart of hearts the Liberal Democrats hate this Bill but have not had the guts to stand up to the Prime Minister and say so. Both coalition parties are putting their political pride before the best interests of the NHS. Is it not time for them to do what they said they would do at the start—listen to doctors and nurses and drop this Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman even read the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, judging from what he has just said. I will tell him exactly what the process is. The process is for detailed discussion in another place. There were 15 days of debate in Committee in another place. It is the habit in another place not to amend the Bill in Committee, but to use those debates in Committee as a basis for amendment on Report. The process is straightforward. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, together with Baroness Shirley Williams, explained to their Liberal Democrat colleagues some of the amendments on which we have been working together in order to make sure that there is further reassurance. [Interruption.] That is literally true.

Let me put the right hon. Gentleman right about something. What is at the heart of the Bill is improving the quality of care for patients. I note that he did not quote me or represent that he was quoting me. I have never said that competition is at the heart of the Bill. Competition is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The purpose of the Bill is to achieve quality. Where competition enables us to deliver better quality for patients, we should use it. Where integration of services and an absence of competition is in the interests of patients in delivering quality, that is the basis upon which the NHS should proceed. The Bill has been tremendously strengthened and is now a long-term sustainable basis for the NHS to deliver the quality of care for patients that we are looking for, while maintaining all the values of the NHS.

NHS Risk Register

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

As I was saying, the Government clearly are not following the statement of policy set out on the Treasury website, but the strange thing, as the House will hear shortly, is that NHS bodies across the country at local and regional level are following the policy closely. As I understand it, the Treasury’s theory is that the more widely the risks are understood and shared, the greater the ability to mitigate them. Indeed, I recall the Minister stating in a press release as recently as last October, the month before the commissioner’s ruling, that an open and transparent NHS would be a safer NHS. Two simple questions follow: why is the Department for Health not following stated Government policy and what it said in October was its own policy; and is the Department in breach of Government policy, or has it secured an exemption from it? I hope that the Health Secretary will shed light on this point today, because at present it does not look too good.

Let me turn to the Government’s other reasons for fighting publication. First, it is claimed that disclosure would

“jeopardise the success of the policy”

That is a moot point. The Information Commissioner said that it is a strange defence, given the Government’s other statements on openness and scrutiny building more robust plans. Secondly, it is claimed that it could have a chilling effect and that officials would be less frank in future. Given that risk assessment is a core part of all public servants’ responsibilities, not an optional activity, that claim was not accepted by the commissioner. Thirdly, it is claimed that the names of junior officials could be disclosed, but the commissioner has said that he was satisfied that the register would identify only senior civil service or senior NHS officials.

Fourthly, it is claimed that disclosure would set a difficult precedent and could lead to the publication in future of information relating to national security. The weakness of this argument, as the commissioner pointed out, is that a precedent has already been set, and it was set by the Labour party when we were last in government. A comparable risk register linked to the specific implications of a particular policy—the Heathrow third runway—was released by the previous Government in March 2009 following a ruling by the Information Commissioner on a request from the current Transport Secretary. Why are this Government not following the clear precedent set by the previous Government? That is the answer to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. In truth, these four reasons seem to me to be the desperate defences of a desperate Government who have something to hide and a desperate Secretary of State.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Let me offer the shadow Secretary of State a view that has been put to the House previously:

“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]

Does he recognise that view?

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State clearly was not listening. It is not a comparable situation. We are talking about a different document. Does he understand that? It is a different document. How more simply does he want me to say it? He was just talking about the strategic risk register. Today the House is debating the transition risk register, and I would be grateful if he did not continue to muddy those waters.

Why are the Government not following the precedent we set? I do not know whether they will try to produce any more desperate reasons today, but it looks to me as though they have no real defence, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has pointed out. People will be expected later to troop through the Lobby for the Government, without so much as a fig leaf of a principled argument to support their call. Liberal Democrats, who used to lecture us on the supremacy of freedom of information, will be exposed once again: spineless, co-conspirators against the NHS, acting out of nothing but gut loyalty to the suicide pact that is this coalition.

That brings me to my second point. What exactly are Government Members all so desperate to hide, and what precise risks are they running with the NHS? When the Prime Minister made his disastrous decision to allow the Health Secretary to break the promises that he had personally made to NHS staff—indeed, those promises were then enshrined in the coalition agreement—and to proceed with his top-down reorganisation, we warned that the hard-won improvements in waiting times over the Labour years would be placed at risk. That is exactly what has happened.

The Government inherited a strong, self-confident NHS, independently judged one of the best health services in the world, if not the best, and in just 20 months they have reduced it to a service that is demoralised, destabilised and fearful of the future. Throughout the country there are growing signs of an NHS in distress. A and E departments are under increasing pressure, with figures published last week showing that the Government missed their own lowered A and E target for the seventh week in a row.

Between December 2010 and December 2011, there was a 13% increase in the number of people waiting longer than 18 weeks and a 105% increase in people waiting longer than a year. The number of patients waiting more than six weeks for their diagnostic tests has more than doubled, and the number waiting more than 13 weeks has more than trebled.

We have a habit in this House of reeling off such statistics, but every single one represents a family living with worry, a life on hold. On Monday the Health Secretary said that

“pressure on hospitals is reducing.”

If ever I heard it, there speaks a voice from the bunker: a sure sign of what happens when you surround yourself with people who say only what you want to hear.

[Mr Lansley]

We must proceed from facts and be accurate. The number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment in May 2010—the time of the most recent election—was 18,458. In the latest figures, published for December 2011, that figure had more than halved, to 9,190.

[Andy Burnham]

I will trade figures with the right hon. Gentleman. He quotes a different time frame from the one that I quoted. If he is going to resort—

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

No, I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman. He resorts to those tactics and gives us the view that the pressure on hospitals is reducing, when all over the country hospitals are under intense pressure and A and E departments and wards are being closed, but, if he expects us to take those statements from him, he should know that we are not going to do so. This is not a man living in the real world, and he is not listening to the warnings that are coming from the NHS. It can be no surprise to people that the NHS is slipping backwards, because that is precisely what local and regional NHS bodies have been warning him. The fact is—[Interruption.] I will not give way. The fact is—

[Mr Lansley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the purposes of accuracy, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to have said that 105% more patients waited longer than a year for their treatment in December 2011 compared with December 2010, when he should know that the figure—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

It’s not actually going to happen.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State says that it is not actually going to happen, but that assessment was made after mitigation. The assessment states that it is likely, that it is major and that mitigating effects have not taken the risk away. He should probably learn to understand the risk register before he refuses to publish it.

NHS Surrey warns of

“performance measures as set out in vital signs for 18 weeks are not met due to a loss of capacity or focus or availability of funding”.

The rating is 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences. The risk has not been mitigated.

What do the local risk registers say about care for cancer patients? Worryingly, some predict—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State would do well to listen; he is not good at listening. He would do well just to listen to what I am saying. Worryingly, some predict poorer treatment for cancer patients.

NHS Lincolnshire’s corporate risk register states:

“New risk in December—the continuation of the Cancer Service improvement, cancer network and the achievement of cancer waiting time targets”.

The risk rating is 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences.

At NHS Bradford and Airedale again, there is a similar risk, with

“poor patient access to cancer waiting times 62 days urgent referral to first treatment, resulting in poor patient care.”

Its rating was 16: extreme, likely to happen, with major consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The curious thing, as I know my hon. Friend will appreciate, is that even the Leader of the Opposition says that reform is needed in the NHS because of the challenges that it faces. Of course we can debate what the nature of the reform should be, but the idea that we can simply stand still and that nothing in the NHS needs to change is not the view of NHS staff, patients, the Labour party or the Government. We therefore have to consider what the nature of that reform needs to be, and I believe in patient choice and empowering doctors and nurses on the front line to deliver care. I believe in cutting bureaucracy and removing whole tiers of management to enable that to happen, and in common with my Liberal Democrat friends and colleagues I believe in strengthening democratic local accountability in the NHS and strengthening public health services through local government operations.

The worst possible thing for me to do would be to say, “We need to reform the NHS because it is doing so badly.” I do not believe that, but I do believe we have to root out poor performance. I was shocked to hear the shadow Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who has disappeared, talking about Stafford hospital. They were the ones who never appreciated the risk of what was happening there. They know that they went through reorganisations without ever addressing the risk. The dreadful things there happened on their watch, so they might at the very least have come here and apologised. The right hon. Member for Exeter came to the Dispatch Box when he was a Minister and said, “Oh, it’s nothing to do with me, it’s all to do with the management of the hospital.”

I believe in foundation trust hospitals, which apparently the Labour party now does not. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say that he is in favour of foundation trust hospitals, but that if they get into difficulties the best thing is for them to be run by the Secretary of State. He might talk to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who was the Secretary of State when, in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, dozens, perhaps hundreds of patients died of clostridium difficile infection at the Kent and Sussex hospital. That was an NHS trust, not a foundation trust. The Department of Health and the Secretary of State have no God-given ability to run hospitals directly and do so better than they can be run by the doctors, nurses and managers in charge. The point is that there must be proper accountability, and through HealthWatch, local government and the responsibilities of Monitor we will have a proper accountability structure in the Bill.

[Andy Burnham]

I said that we would learn the lessons of what happened in the Mid Staffordshire trust, and I apologised at the time on behalf of the Government.

The first-stage Francis inquiry recommended the de-authorisation of foundation trusts. Why is the Secretary of State removing that power in the Bill before Robert Francis has reported again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

We will, of course, fully abide by the terms of the Act. As my hon. Friend knows, and as the Information Commissioner himself said, we are proceeding precisely in line with the provisions of the Act.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me make one additional point, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman—again.

All the information was in the original impact assessment. Information was put into the revised impact assessment in September, as is customary on the introduction of a Bill to another place, but in recognition of the Information Commissioner’s decision on 2 November, the Minister in another place, my noble Friend Lord Howe, described—[Interruption.] I will if I need to, but I do not intend to read it all out. He set out the issues covered by the transition risk register to make Members in the other place aware of precisely what those risks were.

[Andy Burnham]

As I mentioned, there is a precedent here under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. I refer to the request for the risk register on the Heathrow runway. The Information Commissioner having ruled on it, the previous Government published the register. The Government are not following that precedent but instead fighting it in a tribunal. If, on 5 and 6 March, the tribunal does not find in the Government’s favour, will he publish the risk register, or will he carry on fighting?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard the right hon. Gentleman mention his precedent, but it was not a precedent, because that was a risk register relating to an operational matter. I explained to him that the risk registers published by strategic health authorities relate to operational matters.

[Andy Burnham]

This is operational.

[Mr Lansley]

No, the risk register that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about relates to policy development, not an operational matter. It is a high-level risk register akin to others across Government that, if published, would be prejudicial to frank advice in policy development. [Interruption.] I am only repeating the position that he took when Secretary of State. Let me quote him:

“We have determined that the balance of public interest strongly favours withholding the information”.

I will take his advice and stick to my view: the release of the risk register does not serve the public interest, even if it might serve his political interest to make a song and dance about it. I have been clear about it, as has my noble Friend. The information on which any debate about the Bill should be conducted is already in the public domain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the average time that in-patients waited for treatment at the time of the last election was 8.4—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question and I am telling him the answer. The average time was 8.4 weeks. That has gone down to 7.7 weeks. For out-patients, the average waiting time was 4.3 weeks at the time of the election. That has gone down to 3.8 weeks. The number of patients waiting for more than 18 weeks at the time of the election was—

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

A and E.

[Mr Lansley]

I made it very clear after the election that, on clinical advice, we would relax the 98% target to 95%. Patients are being seen within four hours in A and E far more consistently in England than in Wales, where there is a Labour Government. Let me remind the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) that we have more than halved the number of patients who wait more than a year for treatment since the election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that he would listen to doctors and nurses but yesterday shut the door of No. 10 Downing street in their faces. But now things take a sinister turn. Let me quote from a letter from an NHS director received last week by a respected clinician of many years’ standing:

“I understand that you are a signatory to a letter which highlights your personal concerns about the Health Bill. It is inappropriate for individuals to raise their personal concerns about the proposed Government reforms. You are therefore required to attend a meeting with the Chief Executive to explain and account for the actions you have recently taken.”

Will he confirm that it is now his policy to threaten NHS staff with disciplinary action if they speak out against his reorganisation?

[Mr Lansley]

No, it is not my policy. I do not know the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and if he had shown it to me beforehand I could have investigated it. Yesterday, I and the Prime Minister met doctors and medical professionals and they discussed precisely how to improve services for patients. I went to Queen’s hospital in Romford and met nurses, midwives and doctors working to make the trust one in which their public can have confidence and, in due course, a foundation trust. All these things—foundation trusts, clinical commissioning, patient choice—used to be things that he believed in. They are now things that we are achieving but which he has rejected.

[Andy Burnham]

It is, it would seem, the Secretary of State’s new top-down bullying policy, and it is happening right across the NHS. How does he reconcile that with what he used to say about whistleblowing? I remind him of what he once said:

“The first lines of defence against bad practice are the doctors and nurses”,

who

“have a responsibility to their patients to raise concerns if they see risks to patient safety. And when they do, they should be reassured that the Government stands full square behind them.”

Full square behind them so that he can plunge the knife straight into their backs! The truth about his mismanagement of the NHS is coming out: staff bullied into silence, professionals frozen out, crucial information in the risk register—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We get the gist.

NHS (Private Sector)

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion? Its request to the Government is not unreasonable; it asks them “to revise significantly downwards” the cap they have proposed.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

To what?

[Andy Burnham]

I remind the Health Secretary that he is the Secretary of State, not me. It is for him to bring forward proposals. Forty-nine per cent: in that proposal he is saying that NHS hospitals can give equal priority to the treatment of private patients—that it can be as legitimate an objective for an NHS facility, paid for by the taxpayers, to be used equally for the treatment of private and NHS patients. I put it to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) that I am not prepared to accept a cap on that scale. It could lead to an explosion of private sector work in NHS facilities and I do not think that is in the best interests of NHS patients. I would be prepared to accept the Government’s bringing forward proposals that fulfilled a modest loosening of the cap, to give the NHS more freedom at this difficult time, but I am talking in single figures. I am not talking about a doubt-digit, 50% cap—a recommendation that hospitals devote half their resources to private patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this proposal brings that conflict right to the heart of the NHS. At the moment, NHS hospitals have a paramount and overriding duty to the treatment of NHS patients, but considering a health care system whereby services would be delivered through a series of commercial contracts brings that conflict of interest into the health care system—shareholders on the one hand, patients on the other. That is why there is such deep disquiet among health professions about these proposals. It is why those professions applied so much pressure last year, and the pause was ordered. It is why, I am afraid, they are still unhappy today—the Government have not addressed their concerns.

[Mr Lansley]

Before the right hon. Gentleman continues with this wholly erroneous line of discussion, will he reflect on the fact that the Bill introduces, for the first time, a transparency in accounting between NHS activity and any private income in any foundation trust, which he did not put into legislation? The Bill introduces a transparency that there can be no cross-subsidisation between NHS resources and any private activity. It introduces a legal requirement for any foundation trust to explain to the public at its annual meeting how it has used any private income to the benefit of NHS patients. Will he reflect on the fact that the primary purpose of a foundation trust is to provide NHS services? For it to do anything that was to the detriment of NHS patients, involving private patients, would be contrary to its primary purpose and unlawful.

[Andy Burnham]

There are a lot of questions there. The Secretary of State discusses the safeguards, but he has introduced them precisely because he has made a major break with 63 years of NHS history. He needs them because he wants a different health care system in this country, in which much more work is done by private providers and in which the commissioning of services is largely handed over to the private sector. That is why he has had to introduce those safeguards. We had a health service that was planned, managed and publicly accountable, but he is throwing all of that away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

What the hon. Lady describes is precisely what has happened time and again under the legislation we inherited, which is not transparent. Primary care trusts were not accountable or transparent and an enormous amount of activity went on with tenders that involved the private sector and was not conducted in the way that we want, which is on the basis of a tariff and on the basis of which provider is best able to deliver the highest quality.

Let me deal with the first of the myths propagated by the right hon. Member for Leigh: that we have some kind of privatisation agenda. We do not. As I recollect, the only time any Government had a specific objective to increase the role of the private sector in the NHS was when he was a Minister, his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) was a special adviser to the Department for Health and Patricia Hewitt was Secretary of State. That was when they were saying they wanted to increase the role of the private sector to 10% or 15%, and the Health and Social Care Bill contains specific provision not to allow such discrimination in favour of private providers in future.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State says that he has no proposals to increase privatisation. Will he confirm that he has sent a letter through the Department asking clinical commissioning groups to identify three community services that will be subject to a compulsory competitive tender?

[Mr Lansley]

No, because it is not compulsory competitive tendering. It will extend access to any qualified provider—

[Andy Burnham]

That is the same thing.

[Mr Lansley]

It is not. The right hon. Gentleman, having been Secretary of State, ought to understand the difference between compulsory competitive tendering and any qualified provider. Under compulsory competitive tendering, it is the primary care trust that gets to choose who provides the service, but under any qualified provider it is patients who get to choose. One example is access to wheelchair services. Voluntary sector organisations, such as Whizz-Kidz, are setting out to provide a better service. From its point of view, that is not competitive tendering. Wherever Whizz-Kidz provides the service, patients in that area—[Interruption.] If he wants to have a conversation with other Members, he may by all means do so, but I will sit down.

I answered the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I am afraid that it proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between competitive tendering processes, which have been the stuff of primary care trusts—in the past it was they that decided who should provide services—and giving patients access to choice so that they can drive quality. Unlike competitive tendering, which was generally price-based tendering decided on cost and volume, under any qualified provider it is not about price, but about quality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

No, it is nothing to do with Monitor in those circumstances; those whom I have mentioned will make the choice.

The more choice there is, the more innovation there is, the more new ideas there are and the more pressure there is on all providers from all sectors constantly to raise their game for patients. The evidence supports that.

[Andy Burnham]

I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman very carefully, and he made a statement a moment ago about there being no privatisation—that privatisation will not result from the Bill. Is he saying to us that his Health and Social Care Bill will lead to no additional privatisation of commissioning or provision in the national health service? It is a very clear question.

[Mr Lansley]

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

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

[Mr Lansley]

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

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

[Andy Burnham]

We did, and I have celebrated it already, because it delivered the lowest-ever NHS waiting lists, which I celebrate again. But I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman, and I get the impression that he is completely confused. He cannot admit that his Bill will lead to more privatisation, but that is at its core, and people listening to this debate would have more respect for him if he came to the Dispatch Box and made an argument for what he is trying to do—to create a market in health care. Is he just floundering around? He is no longer able to say what the Bill is really about. It is about more privatisation, so why does he not try to make an argument for what he is trying to do, instead of avoiding the issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

No, I am going to move on. There has to be time for people to contribute to the debate, so I do not want to go on for too long.

The Health and Social Care Bill will, for the first time, ensure that private and voluntary sector organisations have to meet the same exacting standards and be regulated in exactly the same way as NHS organisations when they provide NHS services. Because that extends to any organisation providing NHS services, whether it be private or voluntary, it is disingenuous at best and possibly disreputable for the right hon. Member for Leigh to draw any comparison with the PIP breast implants scandal. There is no comparison between the position of a private company working in the private sector providing private services and the role of a private company operating inside the NHS under NHS controls. He knows that there is no comparison. In the NHS, the patient will be wholly protected. It is our intention to ensure for the first time—this did not happen under the Labour Government—that when a private sector provider operates in the NHS, it has to provide equivalent indemnities to its patients as would be provided through the NHS. That did not happen when the independent sector treatment centres and other things were brought in. There will be better protection. The private sector operating outside the NHS is a different matter.

Myth No. 3 is that raising the cap on private income will lead to a worse deal for patients. The paradigm example is the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Its private patient cap is set at 31%. That is because in 2002, 31% of its income was derived from private sources and that was the basis on which it became a foundation trust in 2004. Its current private patient income is 25.8% of its total income. The fact that it has a cap does not mean that it goes up to it. In fact, its private patient level has come down slightly. The effect of setting the cap at 10%, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Leigh, would be to take about a fifth out of the income of the Royal Marsden. The Royal Marsden, like Great Ormond Street, is a classic example of how having a thriving private income from research, joint ventures and patients coming from overseas can get a hospital to a place where it can also consistently be recorded as one of the most excellent hospitals in the NHS, where NHS patients get the best care. It has on one hand the highest level of private patient activity—or, strictly speaking, private income—and on the other hand the highest standard of NHS care. The two things are entirely compatible.

[Andy Burnham]

May I just ask the Secretary of State to correct what he has said about the statements that I made? I did not say that I would reduce the Marsden’s cap. I said that we would allow a small increase on the existing cap that is linked to trusts’ own historical levels of private work. It would help the debate if he would be careful to get my position right. I was not talking about an across-the-board, blanket 10% cap, I simply said that some trusts with a much tighter cap of 1% or 2% were asking for a little extra leeway, which I said should be provided. I am not proposing a 10% cap across the board.

[Mr Lansley]

I think I could be forgiven for not understanding what on earth the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, since he did not put it in his motion and my colleagues had to ask him three or four times before they got anything close to an answer—he was saying “10%, or in single figures, we’re not quite sure what it would be”.

We have always been clear that there is an inherent unfairness in some foundation trusts having a cap set at the maximum 31% and others having it set at 1.5%, as all mental health trusts did when they were allowed to become foundation trusts. Technically, all NHS trusts have no cap at all, and some of them use that flexibility. Great Ormond Street, for example, is an NHS trust, not a foundation trust, and it uses that freedom, mainly to treat patients from overseas. Are we to stop that happening? I ask the right hon. Gentleman where he would set the cap for Great Ormond Street. I will give way to him if he will tell me.

[Andy Burnham]

I am not defending the existing policy. The cap was set for each trust individually to reflect historical levels. The reason trusts such as the Marsden and Great Ormond Street have a more generous cap is the large amounts of private work that they carry out. [Interruption.] Yes, but if and when they become foundation trusts under the Secretary of State’s policy, they will have caps reflecting their historical levels of work if he adopts my suggestion. I have proposed that each individual cap be modestly loosened, but he proposes an across-the-board 49% cap applying to all NHS hospitals, effectively meaning that every NHS hospital could devote half their beds to the treatment of private patients. Will he confirm that that is the effect of the policy that he is bringing forward?

[Mr Lansley]

Answer came there none. The truth is, we are doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman and his party intended to do. At the election, Labour said in its manifesto:

“Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom to expand their provision into primary and community care, and to increase their private services—where these are consistent with NHS values, and provided they generate surpluses that are invested directly into the NHS”.

That is what we are doing.

Breast Implants

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about PIP breast implants. The House will be aware that approximately 40,000 women in this country have had implants manufactured by the French company Poly Implant Prothese, and that these implants could have been made of a non-medical grade silicone gel. My concern throughout has been for the safety and well-being of all these women. I wish now to update the House on what happened; how we are looking after the women concerned; and the further actions required.

In 1997, PIP received a European CE mark for its silicone breast implants. The CE mark was overseen by the German notified body, TUV Rheinland. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency adverse incident centre received a number of reports annually about PIP implants. Based on such reports, in 2008, the MHRA raised its concerns with the German regulatory authorities and the manufacturer. The MHRA was reassured by the notified body that the number of adverse reports was adequately explained by changes in the company’s reporting practices and by the increasing number of implants sold.

However, in March 2010, the French regulator discovered that rather than using medical grade silicone gel in the implants, PIP had in fact been using unauthorised silicone gel. This is in clear violation of the CE mark. The mark was promptly withdrawn and all EU member states immediately alerted. The MHRA immediately issued advice to stop using PIP breast implants in the UK. The French authorities are currently investigating this as a criminal matter, and the UK Government will help in any way we can with their investigation.

Initial toxicology tests in both France and the UK found no significant health risk to women with the implants. Also the MHRA could find no evidence of an increased risk of cancer. However, on 23 December 2011, following an increase in the number of reported ruptures, the French Ministry of Health announced that it was advising women, as a non-urgent precautionary measure, to consider having their PIP implants removed. The MHRA’s advice was that there was no scientific basis for recommending routine removal of implants in the absence of symptoms.

The available data, however, were incomplete. For this reason, I asked Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, to form an expert group and to review the available data, including information from the French authorities, and to offer more definitive advice. I received the group’s interim report on Friday 6 January and a copy has been placed in the Library. I would like to thank the experts and members of the profession for their hard work and commitment in producing this rapid report.

The main findings of the expert group were, first, that there is no causal link between these implants and breast cancer. Secondly, the evidence on the rate of ruptures for PIP implants compared with other implants is incomplete and so this risk cannot be assessed definitively. Thirdly, although the rupture of implants or leakage of material can result in inflammation, there is no clear evidence that these problems are more serious in relation to PIP implants than other implants, or that they result in increased long-term health risks. Therefore, they have not recommended routine removal of the implants. Fourthly, there are risks inherent in the removal of breast implants, just as with any surgery, and these risks should be taken into account when taking any clinical decisions. However, for this particular group of women the risk is very low. Fifthly, the expert group recognises, as we have throughout, that women with PIP implants will be understandably concerned that they did not have the character of implant that they thought they did. The expert group advises, as we have, that we should give every woman an opportunity to secure advice, investigation and remedy.

The women who received the implants did so on the understanding that the implants met the requirements of the CE mark and were safe. That was not the case, and every provider has a responsibility to put things right. Although the majority of women will have received their implants privately, some—such as those who have had reconstructive surgery following mastectomy—will have received PIP implants through the NHS. All those patients will receive the highest possible standard of care. First, they will be contacted to inform them and give them all the relevant information and advice. Women who wish to will be able to speak to their GP or the surgical team that carried out the original implant to get advice on the best way forward for them. If the woman chooses, that could include an examination by imaging. If, when informed by an assessment of clinical need of the risks involved and the impact of any unresolved concerns, a woman decides with her doctor that it is right to do so, the NHS will remove and replace the implants, if the original operation was done by the NHS. Last week the NHS chief executive wrote to the service, and Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, wrote to GPs and relevant health professionals. Copies of those letters are available in the Library.

It is right that those who received their care privately should also receive a similar level of service and reassurance from their care provider. However, I do not think it fair to the taxpayer for the NHS to foot the bill for patients who had their operation privately. Eight private health care companies, including Nuffield Health, Spire Healthcare and BMI, have confirmed that they will follow the same guidelines as those that I have set out for NHS patients. However, I want to be absolutely clear that the NHS will continue to be there to support any woman. If a clinic that implanted PIP implants no longer exists or refuses to remove the breast implants, where that patient is entitled to NHS services, the NHS will, in consultation with their doctor, support the removal of PIP implants in line with the guidance that I have just outlined. Any NHS service in that instance would cover only the removal of the implant, which would not include the replacement of private cosmetic implants. In such cases the Government would pursue private clinics to seek recovery of our costs.

These events highlight the need to ensure the safety of people having cosmetic interventions. It is clear from the information that we have received from the industry that the safety information that it collects and provides to the regulator is of variable quality. Without good data, we have no way of knowing when problems arise. I believe that there are a number of things that we now need to do. First, lessons need to be learned from this case and incorporated into the ongoing review of the EU medical devices directive. I spoke to Commissioner Dalli yesterday, and can confirm that this European work is under way. We also need to understand what happened in this instance in the United Kingdom. A review for that purpose will be led by the Minister for Quality, Earl Howe, with expert advice, and will shortly put its terms of reference in the Library. That review will investigate and report rapidly. The blame for what happened lies with PIP, but the review will enable us to learn lessons to improve future regulatory effectiveness and will feed into the Commission’s review.

In addition, the Care Quality Commission will conduct a swift review of private clinics. That review will look at evidence of compliance, patient safety and clinical quality, and the information and support given to their patients. Where a provider does not meet those requirements, the CQC has a wide range of enforcement powers that it can use to protect the safety of patients. The findings of that review will be published before the end of March.

Looking to wider issues of clinical safety and regulation, I have also asked Sir Bruce Keogh to reconstitute his expert group to look at how the safety of patients considering cosmetic interventions can be better ensured in the future. That will include treatments such as cosmetic surgery and dermal fillers. I expect his review to consider whether cosmetic products and interventions are appropriately regulated and have strong clinical governance; whether patients and consumers can be confident that the people who carry out procedures have the skills to do so; and whether the settings in which such procedures take place are able to ensure the care and welfare of people who use their services. That review will consider issues of governance, data quality, record keeping and surveillance, as well as ensuring that proper information is provided to secure patients’ informed consent.

I expect the review also to include consideration of an outcomes-based register of frequently implanted devices, covering everything from breast implants to heart valves and replacement joints, in order to provide the United Kingdom with a valuable asset for further innovation and safety improvement. There is already considerable clinical support for such a comprehensive register. The Government’s commitment is to provide effective reassurance and remedy for women with these implants, and also to learn the lessons to deliver safety and quality for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Health Secretary for his statement, and for the steps that he is taking to help the thousands of women who have found themselves in this worrying situation. We welcome much of what he has just announced, including the further reviews that he has commissioned. I assure him that we will support him in his efforts to reach a resolution as quickly as possible for all those people who are affected, but I have to tell him that he has a lot of work to do, and a lot of ground to recover, as his response to date has not helped to build those people’s confidence.

Over the Christmas break, the mixed messages coming from the Government did not go unnoticed. They only added uncertainty in what has been an anxious time for many people. The Health Secretary has gone from downplaying the dangers on 23 December to announcing an urgent review on new year’s eve, then giving an inconclusive statement late last Friday evening. This has left the people affected struggling to make sense of what it means. For the vast majority whose implants were fitted privately, there was precious little practical advice or help from the Department of Health as they began approaching their private providers. Many women were unable to access their records or told that long delays would be involved. Others have been asked to pay large fees to access their records. Many have simply hit a brick wall when they have sought medical advice or removal, even where there is evidence of rupture.

What people needed at the earliest stages was a strong statement from the Government of what was expected of all private providers—namely, that records should be provided without delay and without charge; that consultations should be arranged when people were worried; and that removal should be arranged urgently when there was evidence of rupture. The reality is that the Government’s failure to provide that leadership from the outset has left people fending for themselves in the face of a self-serving and unaccountable industry.

The Health Secretary was right, however, to establish an urgent review of the evidence by the NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. We welcome the speed with which that review was conducted, and we echo the Health Secretary’s thanks to the members of the review panel. We accept the Government’s judgment on the advice to women regarding the removal of implants on the basis of the data that they have seen, but what confidence can we have in the evidence and data on which those decisions were reached?

We note the Secretary of State’s public comments about the industry’s failure to provide quality information in a timely fashion, and the interim report’s finding that the evidence is subject to “considerable uncertainty”. The review concludes that it should reconvene in “about four weeks time” to examine any new evidence, and to consider whether to update its recommendation on removal. I have to tell the Health Secretary, however, that that feels way too vague and ad hoc. May I press him to give a clearer timetable for this further process of review on whether to change the recommendation on removal? People need absolute clarity on when further statements will be made, so that they can make informed decisions. This is of course a separate matter from the long-term reviews that he has announced today.

This is particularly important in the light of the different decisions that other Governments are beginning to make in response to the situation. Yesterday, the Welsh Government announced that all women who received PIP implants, including those treated privately, will be offered replacement implants on the NHS. That is of course different from what the Health Secretary has announced today. What discussions did he have with his counterpart Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government before their announcement was made? Will he assure the House today that all the data that were available to Welsh Ministers and officials were also available to, and considered by, the Keogh review? Governments around Europe have responded sooner, more decisively and with greater clarity than the coalition has done. By contrast, people here have found the Government’s statements in response to be both inconclusive and ambiguous.

We support the decision to help NHS patients to have PIP implants removed and replaced, but does the Secretary of State appreciate how that decision has added to the confusion that many people feel and was interpreted as contradictory to the review’s overall finding? The clear implication of the Keogh review is that the best course of action is, in fact, to have the implants removed, but again no practical help was offered beyond the statements of expectation for private providers to match the support on offer from the NHS and the reference made to “moral duty”.

I, too, commend the private providers, such as Nuffield, Spire and BMI, that have done the right thing by their patients, but in recent days we have heard how some of the leading cosmetic surgery clinics have simply ignored the Health Secretary’s appeal. Transform, which used PIP implants on over 4,000 patients, has said that all women affected will have to pay £2,800 for removal, while the Harley Medical Group, which has 13,900 patients with PIP implants, has offered to pay for the cost of the new implant, but only if the NHS pays the far greater bill for the surgery. I am sure the whole House will agree that this is an appalling response to this situation, and that the failure of these companies to face up to their duty of care for their patients leaves everybody, including the Government, in a difficult position. It is simply unacceptable for any woman in England to be left in a position where she is worrying about her health and thus has no peace of mind, but is unable to afford to do anything about it.

I appreciate what the Health Secretary has said today about helping people out of this predicament. I agree with his decision where private clinics no longer exist, but in accepting that the NHS will provide private treatment where private providers refuse to, is he not in danger of letting those providers off the hook? May I remind him that most people will not accept that the NHS should subsidise the failures of private companies, and will look to him to pursue them to the nth degree to get any costs back? For instance, has he fully explored the insurance position of these private providers as a means of recovering costs? He says he will pursue them, but what assumptions has the Department of Health made about the likelihood of his success, and how much money is expected to be recovered? Has he fully explored the position of the French Government and considered whether there is any residual liability on the device manufacturer in that company?

Let me turn briefly to questions of regulation. Can we support what the Secretary of State said today about the wider review of regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry? If there are any loopholes, we will support him in closing them down.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman’s Health and Social Care Bill envisages a much expanded role for the private sector in the delivery of health care. I make no comment about that, but has he reflected on the Bill and revisited the assumptions behind it? Will he assure us that issues of quality and safety will be safeguarded in the NHS that he seeks to create? We want to be assured that he is giving careful consideration to all these issues, as he considers his response to this worrying situation.

Life Sciences

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the strategy for UK life sciences that the Prime Minister is launching this afternoon at a leading life sciences conference. The life sciences industry is one of the most promising areas for growth in the UK economy. It has consistently shown stronger growth than the United Kingdom as a whole, and it accounts for 165,000 UK jobs and totals more than £50 billion in turnover. Pharmaceuticals alone account for more than a quarter of our total industrial research and development spend. Global pharmaceutical sales are predicted to grow by up to 6% a year in the coming years, and in emerging economies medical technology is achieving growth rates of more than 12%. A flourishing life sciences sector is essential if we want to build a more outward-looking, export-driven economy. The partnership between industry, the NHS and our outstanding universities is not just essential to economic growth; it will benefit millions of future and current NHS patients, fuelling the more rapid development of cutting-edge treatments and earlier access to those treatments for NHS patients.

Like many industries, the life sciences industry is undergoing rapid change. The old “big pharma” model of having thousands of highly-paid researchers working on a pipeline of blockbuster drugs is declining. A new model has emerged—one that is more about collaboration, the outsourcing of research and early clinical trials on patients. Excessive regulation can mean that the uptake of new treatments and technology is slow. That is a challenge felt acutely by an industry that sometimes feels that the return is not there quickly enough to satisfy investors. It is felt even more acutely by patients, who understandably expect that they should be able to access the latest and most effective treatments, and that new innovations in care should be adopted rapidly by the NHS.

We have a leading science base, four of the world’s top 10 universities and a national health service that is uniquely capable of understanding population health characteristics, but those strengths alone are not enough to keep pace with what is happening. We must radically change the way we innovate and the way we collaborate.

The life sciences strategy we launch today, alongside the NHS chief executive’s review on innovation, health and wealth, sets out how we will support closer collaboration between the NHS, industry and our universities, driving growth in the economy and improvements in the NHS. All the documents have been placed in the Library.

Among other key measures, we will set up a new programme between the Medical Research Council and the Technology Strategy Board to bring medical discoveries closer to commercialisation and use in the NHS. There are many medical products being developed to treat patients and the cost of developing them is high because they take a long time to develop and test. Investors want to see at least some evidence that the products might work in people and robust validation of the quality of the research and development work being undertaken, as well as of the capability of the company to bring the product to market, before they will finance the development of the products. That means that some of the best medical innovations are not making it through to patients. We are already providing investment to address that, but we believe that we can do more to support the development of these products across funding organisations and the successive stages of product development, which will support the development of promising innovations and help to increase the number of treatments made available to patients. We are therefore introducing a £180 million catalyst fund for the most promising medical treatments.

It can take more than 20 years from the first discovery of a drug until patients can be prescribed it by their doctor and we have already taken steps to address that. Through the National Institute for Health Research, we are investing £800 million in new research centres and two major translational research partnerships that will help cut the time between the development of new treatments and their application in the NHS—from the bench to the bedside.

Now, we are going further. As part of a major drive to improve innovation and access to medicines in the NHS, we are announcing proposals on a new early access scheme that could allow thousands of the most seriously ill patients to access new cutting-edge drugs up to a year earlier than they can now. Through the early access scheme, the medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, would provide a scientific opinion on the emerging benefits and risks of very promising new drugs to treat patients with life-threatening or debilitating conditions for whom there are no satisfactory treatment options. That will mean that seriously ill patients of any age who have no other hope of being treated or having their life extended could benefit from drugs more quickly, around a year before they are licensed.

We must also ensure that we make better use of our unique NHS data capability. It is often said that the NHS is data-rich but information-poor. As a national health service, it contains more data about health than any other comparable health system in the world, but neither the NHS nor scientists developing new drugs and treatments have always been able consistently to make good use of the data or to use them to drive further scientific breakthroughs.

We have seen how powerful the release of data can be. For example, South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and the Institute of Psychiatry now have access to a database covering 250,000 patients. It includes their brain scans, medical records and notes—a wealth of information, all consented to and all anonymised, that is helping them find new answers in the fight against dementia.

We need powerful data-handling capacity and the skills to write the software to mine them. That is why we are investing in e-infrastructure, which will provide secure data services to researchers. The clinical practice research datalink is being introduced by the MHRA in partnership with the NIHR and will provide a specialised service to the research and life sciences communities. Let me reassure the House that we will take all necessary steps to ensure safeguards for patient confidentiality.

We will also make sure that more UK patients get the opportunity to take part in national and international clinical trials and play a much greater role in the development of cutting-edge treatments. We believe that patients should have the right to access new treatments and be involved in research to develop new medicines.

We have responded to calls from research charities and clinicians for Government to get patients more involved in supporting research. A recent Ipsos MORI poll in June found that 97% of people believed it is important that the NHS should support research into new treatments and, in addition, 72% would like to be offered opportunities to be involved in research trials. We will therefore consult on changing the NHS constitution so that there is an assumption, with the ability to opt out, that data collected during a patient’s care by the NHS may be used for approved research.

That would make it clear that researchers and companies with new and potentially life-saving medicines could access the data of patients and could approach patients whom they feel could benefit in order to discuss their involvement in research studies. This would encourage growth in the life sciences industry as more people and more detailed data would be available for the important trials and research needed to get breakthrough treatments used more widely.

Additionally, we have set out actions to improve incentives for investment in innovation and to reduce regulatory bureaucracy. With the creation of the Health Research Authority, we will streamline regulation and improve the cost-effectiveness of clinical trials. As the NHS chief executive’s review of innovation has shown, the NHS needs to be quicker and smarter in adopting new technologies and approaches to care that can both save more lives and cut costs.

Sometimes, it is a question of evidence. Until recently, we could not say with certainty that telehealth could keep people out of hospital and save lives, and there was understandable reluctance among parts of the NHS and councils to invest in untried technology. However, as early results from the whole system demonstrator pilots show, the potential of telehealth is nothing short of remarkable, with dramatic reductions in mortality, in hospital admissions, in emergency visits and in the number of hospital bed days. To make the most of this, we will support the NHS and work in partnership with industry and councils dramatically to spread the use of telehealth over the next five years. In doing so, we are looking to transform the lives of 3 million people in this country.

We will become a global leader in the management of chronic and long-term conditions, generating massive opportunities for UK companies developing this technology. It will be innovation in practice and we will foster other proven innovations such as fluid management technology techniques that were developed for use in high-risk surgery and critical care to help clinicians administer fluids and drugs safely. In March 2011, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published guidance recommending that this technology should be used for patients undergoing major or high-risk surgery. Currently, it is used for fewer than 5% of applicable patients despite evidence showing that it could benefit 800,000 patients and save the NHS £400 million. We will launch a national drive to make sure that fluid management technology is used in appropriate settings across the NHS. That is one example of many.

The innovation review sets out how we will address all the barriers to innovation in the NHS, whether they involve culture, leadership, training, use of information or lack of incentives and investment. We will also introduce a NICE compliance regime that will mean that medicines approved by NICE will be available on the NHS much more quickly. The plans set out in today’s strategies will help to drive the development of new technologies to diagnose and treat the most complex diseases in this country for the benefit of NHS patients. This is a strong package of measures that will support economic growth and innovation in the NHS and will drive significant improvements in patient care. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and start by setting out two points of common ground with the Government? First, we too have pride in Britain’s life sciences industry and its strength. We agree that the industry needs Government support and focus if its potential to contribute to the country’s industrial future is to be maximised. Secondly, we agree that there are huge potential benefits to British patients from closer collaboration between the NHS and the industry. We all want patients to have the quickest possible access to the latest life-saving and life-enhancing treatments.

It was for those two principal reasons that Labour, when in government, prioritised the life sciences sector and established the Office for Life Sciences. In Lord Drayson, we created a life sciences Minister who was a contact point for the industry—someone of huge experience and with real personal commitment to the industry. One of our criticisms of this Government is that they have allowed the momentum that Labour had established in promoting the industry to fall away. Progress has stalled because of the Government’s failure to understand that economic growth needs a proper partnership between the public and private sector and because of the combined effect of a number of their policies. Such policies include: damaging 15% real-terms cuts to the science budget; the loss of the regional developments agencies, many of which were heavily involved in this area; cuts to regional investment; and the destabilising effect of the unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, particularly the disintegration of the strategic health authorities, which played a role in promoting research. The unexpected closure of Pfizer earlier this year exposed a Government asleep at the wheel and was a wake-up call, and now we see a Government playing catch-up.

Although we welcome their belated recognition of the importance of the sector, there are sensitive issues involved and Ministers need to tread carefully so as not to undermine public trust. What they are fond of calling red tape are, to others, essential safeguards. Some areas will always need proper regulation and the use of patient data is most certainly one of them. As we have heard from patients groups today, some have been caused real anxiety by this media-briefed statement from the Government and the lack of accompanying detail.

Ministers need to be aware that people with terminal illnesses and long-term conditions will react differently from others to a statement of this kind, so for them we seek direct assurances today from the Secretary of State that he failed to give in his statement. Will all patients have the ability to opt out of the sharing of their data, even in anonymised form? Surely that fundamental principle of consent should form the bedrock of any new system, and that control of data should be possible in today’s information age. If the Secretary of State cannot give that assurance, why not? How can he justify that?

Did patients’ representatives walk away from the Department of Health working group on these important matters and, if so, why? One representative said on the radio this morning that the whole process “stinks”. Does the Secretary of State not accept that he and his Department will need to do better than this to uphold public confidence in the process or risk undermining trust in the whole principle? What safeguards will there be to ensure that patient data are stored securely? Does he not need to articulate a more positive statement of patients’ rights in this important area, rather than the loose opt-out he proposes in the NHS constitution?

Is it the case that the anonymity of data cannot always be guaranteed? If so, what are those circumstances and, again, why not? Even within anonymised datasets, particularly dealing with small numbers of very specific conditions, it is possible to identify individual patients. What steps are being taken to guard against those risks? Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that data cannot be used for purposes other than research—passed on to third parties or used by the same company to target people for other products and services?

Today’s announcement also needs to be considered in the context of the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS. Does not a more market-based health system with a greater number of private providers create much greater challenges for the control of data? I had many dealings with senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry in my time as a Minister. They were clear that it was the national structure of the NHS, and the ability to collaborate and share information across a whole health system, that was a huge attraction to the industry and a competitive strength for this country.

Does not the Secretary of State’s Health and Social Care Bill risk turning the NHS into a competitive market, where collaboration is discouraged in an any-qualified-provider free-for-all? So how can he guarantee that that competitive strength will be there in the future and will continue to be used by the pharmaceutical industry? Although he will not admit it today, were not many of the measures he has announced, particularly the expansion of telecare, made possible by the steps that we took to invest and modernise NHS IT?

More broadly, this announcement raises questions about the Government’s policy on the involvement of the private sector in the NHS. The Government need to set out what, if any, limit they see on the involvement of the private sector in the NHS. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the NHS to be a fantastic business. Let me quote from a recent leaked document on NHS commissioning, “Towards Service Excellence”. It says:

“The NHS sector . . . needs to make the transition from statutory function to freestanding enterprise.”

It is no wonder that, on the back of these worrying words, the British Medical Association has adopted a position of outright opposition to the Secretary of State’s Bill. Our worry is that, in their desperation to develop a credible industrial strategy, Ministers seem ready to put large chunks of the NHS up for sale.

Patient data are not the Secretary of State’s to give away. The NHS is not his to sell. The truth is that the Government are running huge risks with patient confidentiality and patient safety by opening up the NHS to the private sector and reorganising at a time of financial stress, but we do not yet know the full scale of those risks.

[Andy Burnham]

It is.

The great irony is this: while Ministers are happy to offer up other people’s data, they continue to withhold the NHS risk register, which shows the risk they are running with our NHS. Is that not why people are increasingly asking what the Secretary of State has to hide?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the last sentence was not really worth it, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, while talking about things that were completely irrelevant to my statement, asked a number of questions. Will patients be able to opt out? Yes. It is clear that they will be able to opt out, as I have said. Are there risks relating to a small number of patients being identified? No. As he should know, and as has been done in relation to the general practice research database, where there are small populations of patients in which it might be possible to indentify individuals, or where a small number of patients have very specific sub-sets of conditions and there is a risk of identification, it is perfectly possible to ensure that that information cannot be accessed through the database. We have made it clear that data would be not only anonymised—in fact, it would be double anonymised—in order to ensure that it cannot be recreated, but viewed in such a way that will make it impossible to identify from the circumstances of the data where the patient comes from.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the database must be used for approved research or could be used for other purposes. It must be used for approved research and cannot be used for other purposes. It is not a database that people, whoever they may be, whether from universities or pharmaceutical research companies, can simply access in order to go mining for information; they must do so only through the MHRA and for approved research purposes.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked—frankly, I think it is irrelevant—about the extent of the private sector’s role. Unlike his predecessor, Patricia Hewitt, who was Secretary of State when he was a Health Minister, and who said that she was aiming for 10% or 15% private sector involvement, we are not looking for a specific level of private sector involvement or creating a free market in the NHS. It will continue to be a national health service with the national characteristics that we would expect, funded through taxation and available to all based on need, not ability to pay, and in this context it will continue to be a national NHS. The simple fact that, among other measures in the life sciences strategy, we are able to show how we can bring data sets together, including the general practice database, the hospital episodes statistics, the cancer registries and so on, in order to show the power of data across the whole NHS to support research for new treatments is a complete vindication of the fact that it will be a national health service—that it will change in that respect and that patients will benefit from both the national health service and the research that comes with it.

National Health Service

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I think I should refer the hon. Gentleman back to the King’s Fund speech, because I did not say the NHS should be the preferred provider regardless of the quality of care it provided. I believe that the public NHS should have the first chance to change, and that was the preferred provider policy. We did not want to pull the rug from under the public NHS with a policy of “any willing provider”. If the NHS needed to change, we wanted to tell it, “You have to rise to the challenge, and you have a chance to do so. If you cannot, other providers will get a chance to come in.” That was the preferred provider policy, and I would be grateful if he did not misrepresent it.

As I said, a year ago the Government provided a 0.1% increase—or that was the headline, but the fine print began to emerge and their case began to fall apart from day one. It soon became clear that for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, that figure included an annual £1 billion transfer to local government, ostensibly for social care but not ring-fenced, so councils would be free to spend it as they saw fit. The health funding settlement therefore already went below a real-terms increase. That transfer turned the apparently minuscule real-terms increase into a real-terms cut.

That still leaves 2010-11. When the coalition came into government, it immediately required primary care trusts to cut spending by increasing waiting times and restricting access to treatment, to generate an underspend in 2010-11.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way in a moment.

I mentioned that the Prime Minister is out of touch, and that he promised to recruit 3,000 more midwives and then handed out redundancy notices to them. However, if the Prime Minister is out of touch, I worry that the Secretary of State is in outright denial. On 11 October, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) asked him about the practice of hospitals re-grading or down-banding nursing posts to cut their costs, he replied:

“I am not aware—my colleagues may be—of…trusts…seeking to manage their costs by the downgrading of existing staff. If you are aware of that, then, by all means, tell us, but I was not aware.”

The very next day, that version of events was directly contradicted by Janet Davies of the Royal College of Nursing, who said that

“the Royal College of Nursing has raised the issue of downbanding with the Secretary of State on a number of occasions, alongside other concerns such as recruitment freezes and redundancies in the NHS…Our members’ survey released earlier this month also revealed that 7% of nurses expect to be downbanded in the next 12 months”.

If the Secretary of State would like to correct the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Health and confirm that he was aware of the practice of down-banding, he can be my guest right now.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not change a word of what I told the Health Committee—it was entirely accurate. I have checked the records, and at no stage had the RCN raised that issue with me.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State directly contradicts, on the record, a spokesperson from the Royal College of Nursing. If he stands by his evidence, will he publish the minutes of his meetings with the RCN in which it states that the issue of down-banding was specifically discussed?

[Mr Lansley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

When I am ready.

Will the Secretary of State promise today to publish those minutes?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I shall publish the minutes of those meetings, but I resent the implication from the right hon. Gentleman that I would stand at this Dispatch Box or sit before a Select Committee and say anything other than what I believed to be the complete truth.

[Andy Burnham]

If that is the case, I respectfully ask the Health Secretary why he has not responded to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire—

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is nodding. Why has the Secretary of State not responded to the letter that my hon. Friend sent to him several weeks ago pointing out the discrepancy between his evidence and the statements from the RCN? If he wants to adopt a pious tone in the House, he needs to reply to his letters on time and put his facts on the record.

[Mr Lansley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Andy Burnham]

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling or asking? [Interruption.] I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Lansley]

If the right hon. Gentleman is going to insult me, he ought at least to give way. I have seen no letter from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). I have seen a letter from the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, to which I approved an answer.

[Andy Burnham]

Well, that is no good to me. We have not seen that answer. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reply to hon. Members’ correspondence in a timely fashion, especially when it relates to serious issues about discrepancies between his evidence and statements made by the RCN.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

One of the reasons that the House should reject the motion is that it is deeply flawed. Let me just take up the hon. Lady’s argument. What an own goal it is for Labour to say that NHS funding fell in 2010-11. That was the last year of the Labour Government’s spending plans, not ours. The amount available to the NHS in 2010-11—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question. The amount available to the NHS in 2010-11 was exactly the same amount as the last Labour Government determined under their spending plans. So if Labour is accusing the NHS of having a reduction in real terms in 2010-11, that is a complete own goal, because it happened as a consequence of its decisions, not ours.

[Andy Burnham]

May I just explain to the Secretary of State the difference between projected budgets and out-turn figures, as published by the Treasury? Will he confirm that the figures published in the Treasury’s public expenditure statistical analysis will be the figures that go into the historical record, and that they will record a real-terms cut because of underspends that he ordered?

[Mr Lansley]

That is absolutely not true, because we ordered absolutely no cuts in the NHS budget in 2010-11 compared with the spending plans that we inherited. So that is a complete own goal on the right hon. Gentleman’s part. And in regard to all that stuff that he talked about the support that the NHS is giving to social care, I can tell him that, with the exception of the underspend in the departmental central budgets, because we cut back on all of its bureaucracy and its IT programme, we spent over £150 million, or whatever it was—

[Mr Lansley]

Sit down for a minute. I am answering the shadow Secretary of State. As I was saying, more than £150 million was generated from underspends in the departmental central budget in the last three months of the last financial year, and it was spent with local authorities in supporting social care. The rest of the social care support is for 2011-12, so what the right hon. Gentleman said cannot be a reason for the underspend in 2010-11. The amount spent was all in PCT allocations; there was no mechanism by which the Department of Health could go out and ask PCTs to spend less—the money was allocated to them. The shadow Secretary of State shakes his head, but he knows it is true. The money was allocated to the PCTs and they were free to spend the money they had.

The first reason to reject the motion is that it is a spectacular own goal. The second reason to reject it—

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman says it is not true that PCTs were asked to set aside funds and generate underspends, so may I remind him of a letter sent by the chief executive of the NHS shortly after the White Paper was published, telling primary care trusts to set aside funding for the cost of transition? That is clear; it is in black and white. He did ask PCTs to generate those funds to spend on the costs of his reorganisation.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but that is another spectacular own goal. Both before and after the election, the chief executive of the NHS set aside, as the right hon. Gentleman had planned before the election, £1.7 billion for non-recurrent expenditure for the costs of NHS reorganisation. It was done before the election; we never changed the figure. It is not a consequence of any of our plans, but a precise consequence of the right hon. Gentleman’s. He said he accepted the Nicholson challenge, and the £1.7 billion non-recurrent set aside in 2010-11 was to fund that challenge. That was set out before the election, not after it. I thought that one of the benefits of the former Secretary of State coming here to debate matters would be that we would be treated to a bit of knowledge of the NHS and of how it works, but that does not seem to be the case at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman also intervened on the shadow Secretary of State. I am afraid that I do not recognise his description. I said before the election that we would have a moratorium on top-down and forced closure programmes affecting A and E and maternity services—and that is exactly what we did. A moratorium means what it says; it provides an opportunity to stop, to take stock and to subject something to the right tests. I set out for the first time the tests that needed to be met—that proposals needed to be consistent with prospective patient choice, consistent with the views of the local community, not least as expressed through the local authority, consistent with the views of the commissioners in the area, especially the developing clinical commissioning groups, and consistent with clinical evidence of safety.

In the context of Enfield and Chase Farm, the hon. Gentleman knows—because he was a participant in these discussions—that that moratorium was applied, that the opportunity was given to the local authority and the general practice community in Enfield to come forward with alternative solutions. We should also remember that among those four tests is the one about clinical evidence and safety. However, when those community groups came back and said, “We don’t have a specific alternative, but we just don’t want things to change”, I had to ask the independent reconfiguration panel to examine it. Its view was that that was not clinically sustainable.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. I have given way many times. I am answering the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love). It was very clear that we could not proceed on that basis.

I have another point for the hon. Member for Edmonton about what I found in a number places. Although this was not true of the moratorium in Maidstone and Chase Farm, the moratorium has led to substantially improved outcomes for local services elsewhere, as with Burnley, Solihull, Sidcup, Ealing, the Whittington hospital and other places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. I think that the moratorium has led to a better way forward even in Enfield. It is in the hands of the commissioners and the local authority in Enfield collectively, to make decisions for Enfield. Within two months I shall receive a report from NHS London advising whether it would be better organisationally for Chase Farm to be combined with North Middlesex rather than Barnet, and I should be interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s view on that. We continue to seek not top-down forced reconfigurations, but reconfigurations that consistently meet the four tests, and do so in the best interests of the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. The point of a foundation trust is that it should take more responsibility for securing the resources enabling it to undertake its own building projects. Foundation trusts cannot walk into the Department of Health imagining that they will receive a capital grant of more than £400 million. That is simply not the way it works. It is to the credit of the hon. Gentleman’s local trust that it accepted that, and is working, as a foundation trust, on a better solution for the hon. Gentleman’s area.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No, because I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman many times. Let me tell him this. If he was going to offer to try to work with others on GP commissioning, he ought at least to have demonstrated before the election that he was going to do something about it; and using a transparent political ploy to try and interfere with the passage of the legislation in another place carries no credibility with me or with anyone else. Labour’s tabling of a motion in the other place in an attempt to block the Bill completely showed no willingness to work together, and the fact that it was defeated by 134 votes ought to have given the right hon. Gentleman a reason—and sufficient humility—not to try to return to the subject by tabling today’s motion.

As I said earlier, I find it regrettable that neither the right hon. Gentleman’s motion nor his speech made any attempt to deal with what has happened in the NHS over the past year. Let me tell him, and the House—for I know my right hon. and hon. Friends will be interested as well—what has, in truth, happened during that time.

At the end of the last Labour Government, the average in-patient wait was 8.4 weeks. According to the latest available figures, that has fallen to 8.1 weeks. The average waiting time for out-patients was 4.3 weeks at the time of the last election; it is now 4.1 weeks. Over the last year, the number of MRSA bloodstream infections in hospitals has fallen by a third, and the number of clostridium difficile infections by 16%. Nearly three quarters of a million more people have access to NHS dentistry. Nearly 2 million people have access to the new 111 urgent care service, and the whole country will be covered within the next 18 months. When we came to office, I discovered that there had been talk about a 111 telephone system, but nothing had been done. It is now happening.

More than 75% of stroke patients now spend 90% or more of their hospital stay in a stroke unit. That is a 20% increase in two years. The Cancer Drugs Fund has given more than 5,000 patients access to the drugs that they desperately need, and which under the last Government’s regime would not have been available to them. We have embarked on an £800 million investment in translational research, increasing our financial support for it by 30%, to help to secure the United Kingdom as a world leader in health research.

The NHS is leading the way in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, with 86% of patients receiving an assessment for the condition. I believe that that constitutes an increase of some 30% in the last year. The bowel cancer screening programme is enabling many more patients and members of the public to be screened, there is more screening for diabetic retinopathy than ever before, and there were 188,000 more diagnostic tests in the three months to August than there were last year. Pathfinder clinical commissioning groups have been established virtually through England, and there are 138 health and wellbeing boards in local authorities, meeting and putting together their strategies to deliver population health gain across their areas.

In a single year, the year preceding the election, the right hon. Member for Leigh presided over a 32% increase in NHS management costs. That was the year after the banks had gone bust. It was the year when it was obvious that Government deficits were out of control. It was the year when the debt crisis was just about to crash over the whole public sector. What happened on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? There was a 23% increase in management costs in a single year, to £350 million. In the year that followed, we reduced those costs to £329 million.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

NHS White Paper

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of the national health service.

The NHS is one of our great institutions, and a symbol of our society’s solidarity and compassion. It is admired around the world for the comprehensive care it provides and for the quality, skill and dedication of its staff. I begin today by paying tribute to the staff of the NHS and the commitment they daily show to patients in their care.

This Government will always adhere to the core principles of the NHS: a comprehensive service for all, free at the point of use, based on need, not ability to pay. That principle of equity will be maintained, but we need the NHS also consistently to provide excellent care.

The NHS today faces great challenges: it must respond to the demands of an increasing and ageing population, advances in medical technology and rising expectations; it remains stifled by a culture of top-down bureaucracy, which blocks the creativity and innovation of its staff; and it does not deliver outcomes in line with the best health services internationally—many of our survival rates for disease are worse than those of our neighbours. The NHS must be equipped to meet those challenges. We believe it can do much better for patients, so today I am publishing the White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”, so that we can put patients right at the heart of decisions made about their care, put clinicians in the driving seat on decisions about services, and focus the NHS on delivering health outcomes that are comparable with, or even better than, those of our international neighbours.

For too long, processes have come before outcomes, as NHS staff have had to contend with 100 targets and over 260,000 separate data returns to the Department each year. We will remove unjustified targets and the bureaucracy that sustains them. In their place, we will introduce an outcomes framework setting out what the service should achieve, leaving the professionals to develop how.

We should have clear ambitions, and our approach will be set out shortly in a further consultation document. For example, our aims could be: to achieve one and five-year cancer survival rates above the European average; to minimise avoidable hospital-acquired infections; and to increase the proportion of stroke victims who are able to go home and live independently—in short, care that is effective, safe and meets patients’ expectations.

The outcomes framework will be supported by clinically established quality standards, and the NHS will be geared across the board towards meeting them. We will do that by rewarding commissioners for delivering care in line with quality standards; strengthening the regulatory regime so that patients can be assured that services are safe; and reforming the payment system in the NHS, so that it is a driver not just for activity, but also for quality, efficiency and integrated care.

Patients will be at the heart of the new NHS. Our guiding principle will be “no decision about me, without me.” We will bring NHS resources and NHS decision making as close to the patient as possible. We will extend “personal budgets”, giving patients with long-term conditions real choices about their care. We will introduce real, local democratic accountability to health care for the first time in almost 40 years by giving local authorities the power to agree local strategies to bring the NHS, public health and social care together. Local authorities will also be given control over local health improvement budgets. This will give an unprecedented opportunity to link health and social care services together for patients. We will give general practices, working together in local consortiums, the responsibility for commissioning NHS services, so that they are able to respond to the wishes and needs of their patients. This principle is vital, bringing together the management of care with the management of resources. With commissioning support, GPs collectively will lead a bottom-up design of services.

In addition, we will introduce more say for patients at every stage of their care, extending the right to choose far beyond a choice of hospital. Patients will have choice over treatment options, where clinically appropriate, and the consultant-led team by whom they are treated. They will have the right to choose their GP practice, and they will have much greater access to information, including the power to control their patient record. We must ensure also that patients’ voices are heard, so we will establish HealthWatch nationally and locally, based on local involvement networks, to champion the needs of patients and the public at every level of the system.

To achieve these improvements in outcomes, we need to liberate the NHS from the old command-and-control regime, so all NHS trusts will become foundation trusts, freed from the constraints of top-down control, with power increasingly placed in the hands of their employees; and we will allow any willing provider to deliver services to NHS patients—provided that they can deliver the high-quality standards of care we expect from them. Our aim is to create the largest social enterprise sector in the world, but it is not a free-for-all. Monitor will become a stronger economic regulator to ensure that the services being provided are efficient and effective, and that every area of the country has the NHS services it needs to provide a comprehensive service to all. The Care Quality Commission will safeguard standards of safety and quality. An independent and accountable NHS Commissioning Board will be established to drive quality improvements through national guidance and standards, in order to inform GP-led commissioning. The board will allocate resources according to the needs of local areas, and lead specialised commissioning.

In the coming weeks, detailed consultation documents will enable people to comment on the implementation of this strategy, leading to the publication of a health Bill later this year. I recognise that the scale of today’s reforms is challenging, but they are designed to build on the best of what the NHS is already doing. Clinicians are already working to facilitate patient choice, giving patients the information they need to make effective decisions. GP consortiums are already established in some areas of the country and are ready to go. Local authorities in some areas are already working closely with local clinicians to co-ordinate health and social care and improve public health. Payment by results already gives us a starting framework for building a payment system that really drives performance. Foundation trusts are already using the freedoms they have to innovate. We will build on this progress, not dismantle it.

With this White Paper we are shifting power decisively towards patients and clinicians. We will seek out and support clinical leadership. That means simplifying the NHS landscape and taking a further, radical look at the whole range of public bodies. We will reduce the Department of Health’s NHS functions, delivering efficiency savings in administration. We will rebalance the NHS, reducing management costs by 45% over the next four years and abolishing quangos that do not need to exist, particularly if they do not meet the Government’s three tests for public bodies. We will also shift more than £1 billion from back-office to the front line. Form must follow function. As we empower the front line, so we must disempower the bureaucracy. Therefore, after a transitional period we will phase out the top-down management hierarchy, including both strategic health authorities and primary care trusts.

Later in the summer, we will be publishing a report setting out how we see the future of NHS-related quangos. I can say now that this will mean a reduction of at least a third in the number of such bodies. This is part of a wider drive across government to increase the accountability of public bodies and reduce their number and cost. The dismantling of this bureaucracy will help the NHS realise up to £20 billion of efficiency savings by 2014, all of which will be reinvested in patient care. Today’s reforms set out a long-term vision for an NHS that is led by patients and professionals, not by politicians. It sets out a vision for an NHS empowered to deliver health outcomes as good as any in the world. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it, although in keeping with the style of this Government, it would appear that this House was the last to find out, behind every media outlet in the land.

Last month, the Commonwealth Fund gave its verdict on Labour’s NHS, saying that it was top on efficiency and second overall on quality compared with other developed health care systems. Today, we have further evidence of progress, with figures from Cancer Research UK showing that long-term cancer survival rates have doubled. This progress was hard won; it took 10 years of painstaking work piecing together a detailed jigsaw. The right hon. Gentleman, with this White Paper, has today picked it up and thrown the pieces up in the air. It is a huge gamble with a national health service that is working well for patients.

The right hon. Gentleman’s spin operation bills this as

“the biggest revolution in the NHS since its foundation 60 years ago”.

That is something of a surprise, given the ink was barely dry on a coalition agreement that said:

“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care.”

What has happened since the publication of the coalition agreement to justify a U-turn of such epic proportions? Manifesto commitments have been casually dropped but this must be the first time that that agreement has been so spectacularly ripped up.

This reorganisation is the last thing that the NHS needs right now; it needs stability, not upheaval. All its energy must be focused on the financial challenge ahead. It needs confident, motivated staff, but the 1.3 million people who work for the NHS will not be comforted by this White Paper and they will be alarmed that their systems of national pay bargaining are being torn up. We support a strong say for clinicians and GPs in improving quality. That was the direction that Lord Darzi set out, after broad consultation. We introduced practice-based commissioning within a framework of public accountability and population-wide commissioning supported by primary care trusts. What we do not support is the wiping away of oversight and public accountability, and the handing over of £80 billion of public money to GPs, whether they are ready or not. Michael Dixon, chair of the NHS Alliance, says that only about 5% of GPs are ready to take over commissioning. Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, has judged that even the best GP practice-based commissioners are “only about a three” out of 10 in terms of the quality of their commissioning. So what sound evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have that 100% of GPs are ready, willing and able to commission services for the entire population?

The right hon. Gentleman’s statement talked of rewarding commissioners who hit outcomes. Does he mean yet more money for GPs? How much will all GPs be paid for taking on this role? How many jobs does he expect to be lost in the NHS and how much money has he put aside for redundancy costs? What guarantees can he give the House that people will not simply be paid off by the NHS to be re-employed by a GP practice?

How does the right hon. Gentleman think loyal primary care trust staff felt when they read this quote—I apologise, in advance, for the language, Mr Speaker—from

“a senior Department of Health source”,

which was anonymously briefed to the Health Service Journal? It reads:

“PCTs are screwed. If you’ve got shares in PCTs I think you should sell”.

That is no way to treat loyal public servants, who have served the NHS and are now worried about their future. On page 10, the right hon. Gentleman says that the reforms are vital to deal with the financial situation, but is it not the case that there has never been an NHS reorganisation that did not cost money and divert resources in the short term? Is not the handing of the public budget to independent contractors tantamount to the privatisation of the commissioning function in the NHS? Will there be any restrictions at all on the use of the private sector by GPs?

Added to this, the right hon. Gentleman is bringing a series of market reforms into hospitals. He tells us that the first role of Monitor will be to promote competition and talks of any willing provider and freedoms for foundation trusts. Is not that the green light to let market forces rip right through the system with no checks or balances? Are not the hearts of NHS staff sinking as they read the White Paper?

On bureaucracy, we will support the Government where sensible reductions can be made, but what he calls pointless bureaucracy, we call essential regulation. What are his plans for the Food Standards Agency and are the reports correct that he has waived his right to regulate in return for funding for Change4Life? Can he explain how 500 or more GP consortiums, all of whom will need administration and management, can be less bureaucratic than 152 primary care trusts?

Lastly, where are the public accountability and the accountability to this House? How will GPs be held to account for the £80 billion of public money for which they will be responsible and how will the new NHS commissioning board—the biggest quango in the world—be accountable to this House and to Members of Parliament?

In conclusion, this White Paper represents a roll of the dice that puts the NHS at risk—a giant political experiment with no consultation, no piloting and no evidence. It is the right hon. Gentleman at his confused and muddled worst, but the sadness is that he is taking an £80 billion gamble with the great success story that is our national health service today. At a stroke, he is removing public accountability and opening the door to unchecked privatisation. He is demoralising NHS staff at just the time we need them at their motivated best. For patients, it opens the door to a new era of postcode prescribing where services vary from street to street. It turns order into chaos, and we will oppose it.

[Mr Lansley]

I am just astonished that the shadow Secretary of State seems to have gone to the barricades for the primary care trusts. The primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are organisations that, under his watch as Secretary of State—for about a year—increased their management costs by 23%. In the year for which he was in charge, they spent £261 million on management consultants. Before the election, when it had a majority of Labour Members, the Select Committee on Health said that PCT commissioning was weak and that it was not delivering what was intended. He set up a programme called world class commissioning—it never worked. Central to delivering better commissioning in the health service is ensuring that those people who incur the expenditure—the general practitioners, on behalf of their patients—and who decide about the referral of patients are the same people who, through the commissioning process, determine the shape of the services in their area. It is more accountable.

How often have all of us, on both sides of the House, asked Labour Ministers about what primary care trusts are doing locally in terms of service change only to be told, “It’s nothing to do with us; it’s all happening locally”? We are going to be very clear about the accountability. One thing that the coalition programme has enabled us to do, as two parties bringing our programmes together, is to strengthen the accountability to local authorities. Local authorities, through their strategies that mesh NHS services, public health and social care, will ensure that major service changes and the design of services reflect the interconnection between those things. Those who have complaints and problems will be able to have them addressed through HealthWatch and through their local authority. We will be able, through local authorities, to ensure that the commissioning support to GP commissioning consortiums can be more effective.

The shadow Secretary of State talked about the Commonwealth Fund. I do not know whether he has even read the Commonwealth Fund report, but it said that the UK health care system was the second worst on hospital-acquired infections, that the UK delivers the poorest level of patient-centred care and that, on outcomes, we performed the second worst overall on mortality amenable to health care.

The right hon. Gentleman stood up and said that cancer mortality rates have improved. They have—since the 1970s, and all over the world. However, the issue is where we stand in relation to the rest of the world. If we were to meet the European average on cancer survivals, 5,000 more people would live each year rather than die. If we were to do the best in Europe, 10,000 more would live each year. For stroke, the figure is 9,000. We have to measure ourselves on the outcomes relative to the other health systems that are comparable to ours.

Nine years ago, the right hon. Gentleman’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said that we must spend as much as Europe. Through this White Paper and the reforms that we will bring in, we are determined to achieve results for patients that are at least as good as those in the rest of Europe. It is not just about inputs and spending, but about the results we achieve. The right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his party, has just abandoned the reforms that his Prime Minister, Tony Blair, put forward. In 2006, Tony Blair said that we must have patient choice, practice-based commissioning, the independent sector and foundation trusts—reforms that Labour failed to deliver and, indeed, undermined. We, as a coalition Government, are now determined to put those reforms in place to deliver results for patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The shadow Secretary of State will have had the chance to see that there is nothing in today’s White Paper about the FSA—no such proposal.

[Andy Burnham]

You have been briefing about it.

[Mr Lansley]

I have not been briefing anything to anybody. [Interruption.] I have not. It is very straightforward. The FSA, along with other bodies associated with our public health responsibilities, will be the subject of a public health White Paper in the autumn. There is no proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who will know that I entirely understand and applaud the work of St Catherine’s hospice, because we have visited it together. She makes a very important point, because those whom I know in the hospice movement want to think not just about the service that they provide in their buildings, but about an holistic service for patients’ families and for those who require palliative care. I might just say that on Saturday I made it clear that up to £30 million will be available in this financial year to support children’s hospices, specifically, in extending their work so that they can provide a service in the community for children with life-limiting illnesses.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember our exchanges at the election hustings, where there was a real difference between us: we said that we would protect the NHS budget in real terms, and I stand by that commitment; the right hon. Gentleman said that he would increase the NHS budget. After last week’s Budget, however, we now know the price of that commitment: 25% cuts to social care will mean vulnerable people either left without the support that they need or facing higher charges to pay for care, and huge pressure on carers. It means also that the NHS itself stops working, because it cannot discharge people from hospital when there is no support in the community. That unbalanced approach to public spending is dangerous and will decimate services on which the NHS depends. Is it not time to drop a pledge that had more to do with votes and nothing to do with people’s lives?

[Mr Lansley]

So there we have it, Secretary of State. [Hon. Members: “Secretary of State?”] I meant “Mr Speaker”—you are far more elevated than a Secretary of State, Mr Speaker.

The shadow Secretary of State’s belief is that the NHS budget should be cut. I fail to see how that could help social care. We are going to look much more positively at how we can join up the work of the NHS and social care. What my colleagues and I have announced on 30-day support for patients leaving hospital, including rehabilitation and re-ablement, will do precisely that, relieving some of the pressures on social care by seeing the NHS as a more holistic service for patients.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

In March last year, the Healthcare Commission’s report on Mid Staffordshire and the appalling failures in patient care that it laid bare shocked us all. Three reports later, and I am announcing today what should have been announced then: a full public inquiry into how these events went undetected and unchallenged for so long. The inquiry will be held in public, including the evidence, the oral hearings and the final report. We can combat a culture of secrecy and restore public confidence only by ensuring the fullest openness and transparency in any investigation.

So why another inquiry? We know only too well every harrowing detail of what happened at Mid Staffordshire and the failings of the trust, but we are still little closer to understanding how that was allowed to happen by the wider system. The families of those patients who suffered so dreadfully deserve to know, and so too does every NHS patient in this country.

This was a failure of the trust first and foremost, but it was also a national failure of the regulatory and supervisory system, which should have secured the quality and safety of patient care. Why did it have to take a determined group of families to expose those failings and campaign tirelessly for answers? I pay tribute again to the work of Julie Bailey and Cure the NHS, rightly supported by Members in this House.

Why did the primary care trust and strategic health authority not see what was happening and intervene earlier? How was the trust able to gain foundation status while clinical standards were so poor? Why did the regulatory bodies not act sooner to investigate a trust whose mortality rates had been significantly higher than the average since 2003 and whose record in dealing with serious complaints was so poor? The public deserve answers.

The previous reports are clear that the following existed: a culture of fear in which staff did not feel able to report concerns; a culture of secrecy in which the trust board shut itself off from what was happening in its hospital and ignored its patients; and a culture of bullying, which prevented people from doing their jobs properly. Yet how these conditions developed has not been satisfactorily addressed. The 800-page report by Robert Francis QC, published in February, gave us a forensic account of the local failures in that hospital and the consequences for patients, but, like its predecessors, his report was limited by its narrow terms of reference.

I am pleased to say that Robert Francis has agreed to chair the new inquiry, and he will have the full statutory force of the Inquiries Act 2005 to compel witnesses to attend and speak under oath. Clearly these are complex issues, and Robert Francis has already said he wants to establish an expert panel that can help support him through this process. However, it is important for everyone that the inquiry be conducted thoroughly and swiftly, with the aim of providing its final report and conclusions by March 2011.

I also want to assure the House, however, that we will not wait to take earlier action where necessary. I can therefore announce today that we are going to give teeth to the current safeguards for whistleblowers in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 by: reinforcing the NHS constitution to make clear the rights and responsibilities of NHS staff and their employers in respect of whistleblowing; seeking through negotiations with NHS trade unions to amend terms and conditions of service for NHS staff to include a contractual right to raise concerns in the public interest; issuing unequivocal guidance to NHS organisations that all their contracts of employment should cover staff whistleblowing rights; issuing new guidance to the NHS about supporting and taking action on concerns raised by staff in the public interest; and exploring with NHS staff further measures to provide a safe and independent authority to which they can turn when their own organisation is not listening or acting on concerns.

In the coming weeks we will introduce further far-reaching reforms of the NHS that go to the very heart of the failures at Mid Staffs. This is not about changes in processes or structures; it is about a wider shift in culture, putting patients at the heart of the NHS and focusing on the things that matter most to them. That includes putting the focus on safety. At Mid-Staffs, safety was not the priority. It was undermined by politically motivated process targets. The first Francis inquiry was crystal clear on that point. It said:

“This evidence satisfies me that there was an atmosphere in which front line staff and managers were led to believe that if the targets were not met they would be in danger of losing their jobs. There was an atmosphere which led to decisions being made under pressure about patients, decisions that had nothing to do with patient welfare. As will be seen, the pressure to meet the waiting target was sometimes detrimental to good care in A & E.”

We will scrap such process targets and replace them with a new focus on patients’ outcomes—the only outcomes that matter. We will empower patients with access to information, giving them the ability to hold their own records, to make informed choices and to interact more readily with clinicians. We will put power in patients’ hands. Ultimately, if patients had been informed and empowered, and if people had listened to them rather than obsessing about centrally mandated processes and targets, these scandalous failings could not have gone unchallenged for so long.

In closing, I want to say a word about the trust itself. It is so important that the hospital and the trust, which have been under such an intense spotlight, should be able to continue to improve services for the patients they serve and continue to rebuild the trust and the fractured confidence of their community. Staffing there has increased, with more than 140 more nurses recruited since March 2009. Processes are more open and transparent, and monthly board meetings are now being held in public. Results are improving: the hospital standardised mortality ratio there is now significantly lower, and the rate of healthcare associated infections has improved. The Care Quality Commission will, in the coming weeks, provide its considered view on that progress, when it publishes the findings of its “12 month on” review.

We cannot and should not underestimate the task still ahead, and the attention of the trust must not be unduly diverted. That is why I am clear that this further inquiry should not cover ground already covered in the first Francis inquiry, and that it should, as far as possible, ensure that it supports all those staff who are working so hard to bring about the necessary changes. When this inquiry has completed its work and I return to the House to present its report, I am confident that we will, for the first time in this tragic saga, be able to discuss conclusions rather than just questions. We will be able to show that we have finally faced up to the truths of this terrible episode and that we are taking every step to ensure that it is never allowed to happen again. That is a basic duty of any Government. For the people of Staffordshire—many of whose relatives suffered unbearably in the closing stages of their lives—and for the nation as a whole, this is the very least they are entitled to. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) for his statement, much of which I welcome. It will be hard for the people of Stafford and for the staff at the hospital to hear that their town and their hospital are in the news again today, and it is important to say at the outset—as the Secretary of State did—that this inquiry relates to historical events at the hospital and that the situation there has been improving ever since. I should like to put on record my own personal appreciation of the role played by the new chair and chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust in improving standards at the hospital, rebuilding confidence and rebuilding the important relationships with the local community.

Events at the hospital between 2006 and 2008 represent one of the darkest chapters in our national health service. As the Francis report—which ran to two volumes and more than 900 pages—documented, there were appalling failures at every level, from basic care and human compassion on the wards to a failure in the duty of care at board level towards staff, patients and the whole community.

The NHS and its values are part of what makes our country great, but the NHS is not perfect. When things go wrong, it has a tendency to push people away and bring down the shutters. Yes, it is hard to deal with complaints when they affect matters of life and death, but it is only by holding up a mirror to the national health service that we will get an open, learning health service that learns from its mistakes and ensures that they are not repeated. That is why I took the decision to commission the original Francis report. It is also why, before the election, I signalled the need for a second-stage inquiry, to be held in public, into the actions of the supervisory and regulatory bodies, right up to the Department of Health. I therefore give the Secretary of State the assurance that this new inquiry will have the Opposition’s full co-operation, from the very top right the way down.

We published the draft terms of reference for that second-stage inquiry before the election. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain to the House what questions or areas it will consider that were not covered either by the Francis report or the draft terms of reference that we laid before this House and on which we sought comments from a wide range of organisations? Also, what is different about the inquiry that he has announced, compared with the one that we proposed?

How long will the new inquiry take, and how much will it cost? Will he give the House an assurance—as I think that he did in his statement—that he will ensure that it does not distract the trust from the overriding task of ensuring that the hospital continues to make the necessary improvements? Will he also make sure that the trust’s leadership can continue to focus on improving relations with the local community?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that the recommendations of the original Francis report will continue to be implemented in full while the new inquiry takes place? He will know that Robert Francis concluded in his original report that many people came forward who would not have done if the inquiry had been held under a different status. I gave Robert Francis the ability to come back to me to ask for further powers if they were necessary, but may I ask for the right hon. Gentleman’s assurance today that the status of the new inquiry will ensure that all the people who need to speak to it do come forward and give evidence?

On NHS targets, I was disappointed by the Secretary of State’s comments in his statement, and by those of the Prime Minister a few moments ago, as they appear to be prejudging the inquiry that they have set up today. Trusts up and down the country are implementing national standards safely. Indeed, targets are about patient safety: the four-hour A and E target is the basic minimum that every person in this country can expect when arriving at the door of the NHS.

The targets were implemented and brought in because some years ago, people were waiting for hours on end—almost whole days—in A and E departments. If the Secretary of State is resolved to remove that standard in the NHS, which many of the professional health bodies support, will he therefore give us an assurance that we will not see a rise in A and E waiting times? What mechanism will he implement to ensure that?

The trust’s board allowed staffing to fall to dangerously low levels, with 120 whole-time equivalents lacking from the wards. I put it to the Secretary of State that that was the main reason for the failures at the trust. I am sure that he will agree with me that not all the staff then working at the hospital are to blame, and that there are many good, decent, hard-working people at the hospital who will again find it hard to see their place of work back in the news today. There will also be many staff across the NHS who will feel that there is a daily focus on their failings but very little recognition of the outstanding professional standards that they show, or of the millions of acts of human kindness that take place in our NHS day in and day out.

In closing, may I ask the Secretary of State to give the House an assurance that he will always present a balanced picture and, in this case, be clear that these were isolated events at an isolated hospital?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that he supports this further inquiry, and that he and his colleagues will give it that support. They will know that for more than six years as shadow Secretary of State I always gave both a balanced and positive view of what the staff of the NHS achieve daily on our behalf. That extends to the staff at Stafford hospital, as I have made clear to them when I have visited them in the past. Indeed, I shall be visiting again tomorrow in order to make that even clearer—and I have asked Robert Francis to ensure that as he conducts his inquiry, he does whatever he can not to divert them from continuing to improve care for people in Staffordshire.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what the difference is between the inquiry that I am announcing today and what he said should happen in a second stage Francis report, and I must tell him that there are a number of very serious differences. First, this is an inquiry not under the National Health Service Act 2006 but under the Inquiries Act 2005, so there will be a presumption that hearings will be held in public, and that records of evidence and information given to the inquiry must be made available to the public.

In addition, there will be a power of compulsion in respect of witnesses and evidence. I simply do not accept his assertion that had there been a different legal basis for the earlier inquiry people would not have come forward to give evidence. Either they would have done so or, if they had not been willing to do so, they could have been compelled to do so; that power will be available now. This inquiry will have a power to take evidence on oath and a power under the 2005 Act to make recommendations, if Robert Francis so concludes, concerning not only NHS organisations, which are covered by the 2006 Act, but non-NHS organisations. The terms of reference make it clear that Robert Francis will be able to look more widely. The inquiry will examine, for example, the actions of the coroner and the Health and Safety Executive. Indeed, he will be able to make recommendations in relation to the General Medical Council. He would not have been empowered to do that in an inquiry simply under the 2006 Act.

Finally, may I deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s point about targets? The four-hour target is not a measure of outcome; it is not a measure of the result for patients. The result for patients is about their going to an emergency department and their disease, injury or illness being treated successfully. What happened at Stafford hospital provided evidence—we saw other such evidence in many other places—to suggest that the four-hour target was being pursued not in order to give the best possible care to patients, but in spite of what would be the best possible care for patients. Patients were being discharged when they should not have been, and patients were being transferred to inappropriate wards where there was no provision to look after them.

It is vital that we focus on the result for patients. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the length of wait in the emergency department is not an irrelevant fact for patients. We are therefore going to consider, constructively, how to scrap the four-hour target as it currently exists, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions, work on the basis of saying that what the clinical evidence makes clear directly contributes to delivering the best possible results for patients. We will start that process soon, in making that clear to the NHS. Our approach will go beyond the simple question of how long people wait in an emergency department; it will go to the outcomes being achieved in those departments. That is what putting quality at the heart of the NHS actually means; it means quality and results, not just processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. I was very clear in saying that I am going to abolish the four-hour accident and emergency target. I will issue guidance to the NHS shortly, the purpose of which is to amend the four-hour A and E target, alongside others, to ensure that we deliver better quality. That is not just about the time spent waiting in an emergency department; it is about the quality of the service provided and it is based on clinical evidence.

[Andy Burnham]

That is unclear.

[Mr Lansley]

The point that I am making is very clear. We are not going to focus on narrow process targets in future; we are going to look at the quality and outcomes provided for patients. I will issue future guidance on that.

Education and Health

Debate between Lord Lansley and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

It is a great privilege to be able to come to this Dispatch Box for the first time as Secretary of State for Health, after six and a half years as shadow Secretary of State. I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his kind words about me and my team. I am very proud of the team that we have at the Department of Health. I was proud when the Prime Minister spoke of us in warm terms today, and we will fulfil the responsibilities that he has placed on us.

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, in return, that I thank him, on behalf of the NHS, for his commitment. From the days when he began as a Minister in the Department and then went, as it were, back to the shop floor, I think that nobody has doubted his personal commitment to improving standards in the NHS, nor, indeed, that of his outgoing ministerial team. He is on his own in the shadow health team—[Interruption.] Oh, I beg their pardons. However, he has lost his fellow Ministers. I will not go on at length, but I know that they were all committed to their jobs. I want especially to mention Ann Keen. As a nurse, she showed her personal commitment to the NHS and to nursing as a profession. My colleagues, including the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), and I will ensure that we continue the work of identifying how we can take nursing forward as a profession. That includes the work that she and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), have done in looking at nursing as a profession for the future.

As Secretary of State, it is my privilege to be able to represent those who work in the national health service. We have reason, all of us, to be grateful to them every day. People in Cumbria, especially today, have reason to be grateful to the north-west ambulance service, to local GPs, and to those who work in North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, particularly those at West Cumberland hospital, whom I have twice visited. I know the responsibility that they feel, even on a day-to-day basis, for providing hospital care—acute care—to patients across that part of Cumberland, which is at a great distance from other hospital locations. I know that people in Cumbria will be deeply grateful for the service that they have provided to look after them today.

It is a privilege for the shadow Secretary of State and I to respond to this debate, which has included 23 maiden speeches and, indeed, some fine speeches by Members who are not new. Before I respond to those speeches in detail, I want to say that it was very encouraging to hear the commitment to improving quality expressed on both sides of the House.

It was particularly encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and other Members on these Benches demonstrate that what we need to achieve that quality is a change from a command-and-control, top-down system of running our schools, hospitals, health care and social care services to one that is built on standards of delivering quality. We need to understand that if we are really going to achieve that, we have to give parents greater choice and control over the education that their children receive. We have to give patients greater information, choice and control over the health care that they receive, and in all the public services that we are talking about, we must provide those who deliver them with a much greater sense of ownership.

It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Leigh to talk about what has been achieved in the NHS over recent years, and I have never been one to diminish what has been achieved. However, many who work in the service, notwithstanding the fact that they are better paid than they were and know that they have had an unprecedented increase in resources to deliver improvements, still feel demoralised and that they are not in control of the service that they provide. They cannot give the care that they want to give, and they know that they are not yet matching the standard of care that they could achieve given the opportunity to do so. It is our responsibility to make that happen and I do not doubt the commitment of Government Members to do so. I visited 62 constituencies during the general election campaign and, without exception, I met candidates who were committed to delivering improvements in health care, not least because in many cases they had personally campaigned for years to deliver improvements in health care services. That is why we will not let Labour’s debt crisis, which we have inherited, mean that we cut the NHS and make the sick pay.

When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, he commissioned McKinsey to go off and publish a report. It produced a report for him stating that on average, something like 10% of those employed by a provider of health care with 300 staff should be taken away, mostly clinical staff. That was the recommendation given this March to my predecessor as Secretary of State, but that is not the way we should go. We must move towards a change in priorities from a service that was increasing the number of managers three times as fast as the number of nurses to one that deploys clinical staff on the front line to deliver the care that patients need.

[Andy Burnham]

Just for the record, the report was not commissioned by me or by Ministers but by the former director of commissioning in the Department, who left before I arrived.

[Mr Lansley]

Let me put it like this: I inherited a Department in which the report had been produced but not published, so I published it. I published the report on London and will publish all the reports that were prepared before the election, such as the prescription charges review that the Secretary of State commissioned from Professor Ian Gilmore, which was not published before the general election. As far as I am concerned, we are committed to transparency and getting that information out.

I have immense respect for the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). He and I do not agree about the specific issue of minimum unit pricing on alcohol, and he knows why—I do not believe we have seen the evidence of its benefit compared with cost, particularly for low-income households. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is absolutely right that we must do something about the matter. We must acknowledge the scale and severity of the problems resulting from alcohol misuse, and we must tackle supply, pricing and problem drinks. We must ensure that we enforce legislation properly, but we must also recognise that it is not just about restricting the availability of alcohol. We must change our relationship with alcohol as individuals and as a society, and we will address that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) knows that I am committed to maternity services there and to helping them deliver the quality that his constituents expect. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said that what works in Surrey Heath may not work in Hackney. Exactly—that is the point. When we devolve decision making inside the education and health services, as we intend to do, things happen differently in different places. That is precisely why those services should be empowered to respond in different ways in different places, and that is our intention.

There have been some fabulous maiden speeches today. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that I appreciate the 10 years that he has been fighting for the people of Harlow. He showed today his absolute commitment to maintaining exactly that support for the people whom he represents.

It is good to see the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) back, and to those of us who entered the House at the same time as him, it feels as though he had not gone away. I understand exactly what he says about Alder Hey, and the same is true of Broadgreen. I visited Alder Hey shortly before the election, and it tells us a lot when families are crammed together on a ward, but all they want to do is say how wonderful the care that they are receiving is. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that terrific care is provided in physical circumstances that reflect it. We cannot make announcements about the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen, or about Monitor in relation in Alder Hey as a foundation trust, but I hope that we will be able to do so soon.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and others talked about the importance of community hospitals. I hope that he will have heard the Prime Minister say this afternoon that they are supported and valued. That is absolutely the case, and I know Chippenham hospital from visiting it in the past. The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said that there is more to life than politics. That is very wise, very true and very good advice for those in the Labour party at the moment. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has obviously learnt her politics well, because she mentioned the Express & Star, which is very sensible. She also talked about New Cross hospital, which I have visited, as she will know.

We must provide the public with the information required to enable them to support the driving up of standards through the exercise of control and choice, but also sometimes just through holding people to account publicly for the quality of the service that they provide. New Cross is a great example: there has not been a case of MRSA there since June 2009. That is terrific. The former Secretary of State will say, “Haven’t we done well in reducing infections?” However, that is from a terribly high base. What will drive down infections is a constant focus on places that achieve the best results, and New Cross—as I know from personal experience—does extraordinarily well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and others talked about the pupil premium and the health premium, how we can reduce health and education inequalities and how we can achieve a greater sense of equality in our society. Notwithstanding some of the correct arguments about the wider social determinants of health and education, if we tackle both as communities and as a society, we can do a great deal to reduce those underlying inequalities at the same time as we tackle economic inequality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and I go back a long way—20 years—and it was a delight to hear him talking about Croydon and, in particular, about leadership, because that is important. Many other hon. Members also talked about that issue, and rightly so. I heard no references to traffic lights from the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), but I used to live in Balham and it was a delight to learn more about the area. I never knew that I was walking the longest high street in western Europe. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) managed to tell us about the world’s first integrated sewer system and Meccano, so the debate this evening has been very educational.

I do not want to leave anybody out, and I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who talked about mutualism and social enterprise, which are terrifically important. We will do more to give employers in public services ownership of the services that they provide. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) will know that examples such as Born in Bradford will be part of how we approach our public health strategies. Everyone seemed to mention academies this evening, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) was the only one to mention a golf academy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made the important point that we must deliver improving long-term care that allies health and social care together. We will do that and we will reform adult social care—and we will not wait until 2015-16 as proposed. We will press on and examine how we can do that in a matter of months, not of years.

The hon. Members for Norwich South (Simon Wright) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) gave us further visions of how they will achieve their objectives for their constituencies, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). They are robust advocates in speaking up for their constituencies and explaining their convictions.

In conclusion, I am committed, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to putting in place sustainable, stable reforms that achieve our vision of delivering health and educational outcomes that are as good as anywhere in the world, based on principles of equity, excellence and delivering greater efficiency in the services that we represent, but most of all based on empowerment of people.