Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Yes, I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is right, because part of the big change that we need is to see a big increase in provision of domiciliary care, and an increase in the standard of that care.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State talks about severance and follow-on employment. Does he think it is acceptable that when the former chief executive of Morecambe Bay hospitals trust had to step down in February last year, because of the problems there, he was kept on the books in secret and paid £250,000 from local trust budgets—which could otherwise have gone to local health care—and was transferred to the NHS Confederation where his responsibilities could include teaching future leaders and helping to redesign the system?

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

I will highlight some of the statistical evidence relating to what the hon. Gentleman says, but if nothing else, if we can debunk the myth that we will do damage if we try to intervene and that the use of defibrillators will cause complications, that will be a start. The campaigners who have come here today do not believe that this is the end of a process; rather, it is the start of the momentum that they are building to ensure that this issue is more widely recognised.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. He will share my sadness at the death last week of Eleanor Murphy, who was the mayoress in Barrow last year and who, along with her husband, the mayor, was able to raise £40,000 to buy 20 new defibrillators to be placed around Barrow. Does he agree with me that a great tribute to her life and their effort would be to encourage more firms and shops to agree to have defibrillators on the outside of buildings, which was their big cause towards the end, so that if someone collapses in the street, people do not need to go inside a shop, which might be closed, to be able to save their life? The Co-op is a particular example.

[Steve Rotheram]

Absolutely. What campaigners, or indeed anyone who is sensible enough to understand that we are in times of austerity, will say is that it is not for the Government to do everything. The example given by my hon. Friend of £40,000 being raised and the example of the OK Foundation, which has put defibrillators in all Liverpool schools, and of other organisations that are doing sterling work, prove that this is a partnership. This is something that charities can help with, but it does demand action from the Government.

Accident and Emergency Departments

Lord Walney Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who made what I must say was a quite extraordinary speech. I realise that I may be in danger of being a little ungracious, given that he was kind enough to thank me. I shall say a little about the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, which our constituencies share. However, I must first say to him—on behalf, I think, of several Members who are present—that to suggest that the impending closure of Lewisham A and E department is a scare story from the local Labour party does an incredible disservice to the many thousands of families who are deeply alarmed and worried about what is happening in the area.

[Margaret Hodge]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to save his A and E department, but does he not agree that money should go to where patients are? In my area, north-east London, 132,000 patients currently attend the Queen’s hospital A and E department, and 100,000 attend King George’s hospital A and E. Closing an A and E department that serves more than 100,000 patients is unfair to patients and madness in terms of funding distribution.

[John Woodcock]

My right hon. Friend is right to speak of the crazy situation in which heavily used accident and emergency provision across the country is under threat. I intend to say a little more about the particular challenges faced by geographically isolated regions such as mine, but first let me say how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on a very powerful opening speech.

I want to speak briefly about the accident and emergency department at Furness General hospital in my constituency, and, in doing so, stress the importance of ensuring that A and E provision remains accessible to the high-tech, highly skilled industries in which this nation must continue to lead the world. Barrow’s A and E department is not yet under immediate threat of closure, but there is grave concern about the impending review of services throughout the Morecambe Bay area, which has been driven at least partly by the trust’s need to make significant cuts in its operating budget in the years ahead.

A trust covering 300,000 people would often be served by just one A and E department, but in the Morecambe Bay area there are two. That is due to the particularly challenging geography of the area, and, in particular, the time that it takes to travel the 50 miles from my constituency to Lancaster with only a single road connecting Barrow to the M6.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale directed all his fire at the local Labour party, and in doing so highlighted—probably quite helpfully for the party—the excellent work that it is doing with its campaign on the streets. I was probably more disappointed than surprised that he made no mention of his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is campaigning hard to take A and E provision away from Lancaster and transfer it to Westmorland General hospital.

Let me make it crystal clear why no one should get the idea that Barrow’s A and E department could move. Not only would every single resident in the geographically isolated Furness peninsula suffer unacceptably long journey times if it were closed; its removal would be a significant blow to industry in the area, and would ultimately threaten our potential to become a national cradle for advanced manufacturing. The manufacturing companies on which our local economy depends—including shipbuilding, nuclear engineering and pharmaceutical companies—have enviable safety records, but they nevertheless carry a small but inherent risk of industrial injury. As responsible business men, local employers seek to mitigate and manage that risk, but part of their management includes access to a full accident and emergency service in the locality.

BAE employs 5,500 people in Barrow, representing the largest of the many sites in the nation’s critically important nuclear submarine supply chain. This is what the company’s submarine arm told me for today’s debate:

“BAE Systems Maritime Submarines is possibly one of the highest risk manufacturing sites in the UK with a broad spectrum of safety hazards. Although these hazards are effectively managed and the site has a strong safety record, the absence of locally provided A and E services would have serious implications for the business. The treatment administered within the first hour following incidents is critical. A number of minor incidents, particularly associated with foreign object ingress to eyes, are referred to Furness General Hospital per week. Therefore additional ambulances would be required to transfer injured personnel, significantly increasing the ambulance demand within the area. Decontamination of people would currently be provided by FGH Accident and Emergency following a major incident at the Barrow site. This may include the cleansing of chemicals or radioactive substances.”

If, God forbid, something like that were to happen, time would be of the essence. Here in Furness, as in several areas of the country, A and E closure could put at risk the lives of employees who perform a service to their country and would ultimately endanger key parts of the nation’s prized industrial base. It is vital that Ministers wake up to the full spectrum of risks posed by the approach they seem intent on imposing on our national health service.

University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

I represent a community in shock, reeling from the suddenly announced intention to transfer Furness general hospital’s beloved special care baby unit and consultant maternity services out of the county, from 9 o’clock this morning, to Lancaster. Pleas to rethink that emergency transfer have so far been rebuffed, leaving expectant mums distraught at the prospect of a 50-mile trip in the back of ambulance if they suffer complications in labour. I will set out our concerns in detail and stress the areas in which we hope the Minister, who is of course an expert in the field, will agree to intervene, but first I will discuss the wider issues the area faces, which prompted my application for this debate.

There is the forthcoming review of hospital services, triggered by the need for significant budget reductions across the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. All of us here are acutely aware of the long-term threat that that might pose to key provision, such as the need to sustain a consultant-led maternity service and accident and emergency provision across more than one site in the area.

There is also the campaign against the removal of A and E, maternity and intensive care units at Royal Lancaster infirmary, on which the Downing street petition in the name of Matthew Hood already has thousands of signatures. I think that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) wants to do exactly that—move Lancaster’s A and E department to the Westmorland general hospital. Let me simply say that any attempt to question Barrow’s need for an A and E department would be met with horror not only by every single resident of the Furness area, but by the prized and highly regulated industries on which the nation depends.

The broader question facing the Morecambe Bay trust is how best to locate services when the population is far more spread out than in most areas of Britain, and when centres of population are often connected by a single road that winds through Cumbria’s unique landscape. In other areas, a trust for hundreds of thousands of residents might naturally be based around one A and E department and one maternity unit, but that would put an unacceptable strain on residents of Morecambe bay. People in pockets of severe deprivation in Barrow and families who, for whatever reason, just do not travel would be forced to go to another county and be completely cut off from their families. In an emergency, it would result in journey times of more than an hour on routes that are prone to become blocked by breakdowns.

I want to ask the Minister four questions about the four tests in the Government’s forthcoming consultation. His first test is the evidence base. Will he ensure that the options and risks are properly weighed, so that the risks inherent in long-distance ambulance travel are set alongside what might otherwise be the optimal configuration of services? The second test is whether there is the support of GP commissioners. The past 24 hours have shown the damaging shambles that can occur when a trust attempts to press on against the will of local commissioners. The Government back the new system, so will the Minister ensure that local GPs have the teeth to insist on the services that communities need? The third test is choice for patients. Will the Minister ensure that problems of isolation and lack of access to services are an integral part of the assessment when it arrives on the Secretary of State’s desk? It is hard to imagine the test of choice being passed if, for example, an isolated peninsula’s only consultant-led maternity unit were downgraded. The fourth test is strengthened public engagement. The trust needs to do much better than the mess of the past few days, which has left women desperately worried and confused. I shall say more on that in a moment, but the underlying point is that engaging means listening and acting. Of course, health professionals have a duty to present the options and a proper assessment of safety in each case, but if the public weigh that up and say that they want to keep the services they need close to home, the Government should listen to them.

Another major issue is the need for Ministers to ensure that our local hospitals and the wider national health service adequately learn the lessons of the significant and prolonged failings in hospital management at the Morecambe Bay trust. There have been tragedies about which people are still demanding answers and which apparently did not trigger sufficient improvements, despite laying bare shortcomings in areas such as maternity provision several years ago.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

As usual, my hon. Friend is making an excellent case on behalf of his constituents. Many people in the south of my constituency use Furness general hospital, as well. Does he share the fear that some of them have expressed to me that the rapid removal of the special care baby unit heralds a stealth reconfiguration of services there?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is indeed the great fear. It is up to the trust, and ultimately to Ministers and the Government, to demonstrate that that is not the case, but there are still questions to be answered.

The need for lessons to be learned has been shown by such problems as the basic lack of grip in key areas in recent years—for example, the failure of new computer systems designed to remind patients about repeat appointments, which has clearly put lives at risk. A police investigation into a number of deaths is ongoing. There is also a lack of openness at the trust.

I pay tribute to the hard work of the staff in the maternity unit and across Furness general hospital. They are dedicated people, who come to work wanting to help others and to save lives. There have been real improvements of late, and we should recognise the immense strain placed on staff by the ongoing spotlight on the hospital and the longer-term uncertainty over their future. None the less, families are still grieving because of past mistakes made in a poorly managed system. The Minister was good enough to write to me in response to a letter from my constituent James Titcombe, and again recently on the need for a genuinely independent inquiry into the lessons for the wider NHS of management failings at Furness general hospital.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and, as I know from having worked with him, on his concern for his constituents. Does he not think that we constantly go round the roundabout in relation to the Morecambe Bay trust? To the centre, Morecambe bay sounds as though it is a natural unit, but in fact it is a barrier. I suggest that we need to look at the fundamental geography, which might mean challenging the boundaries of the Morecambe Bay trust, if we are ever to get some balance between the demands of Furness, Kendal and Lancaster.

[John Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, for which I am grateful. I am sure that Ministers will want to consider that, but I think it must not come at the expense of local MPs’ taking our eye off the ball in the forthcoming consultation.

The Minister was good enough to write to me about James Titcombe and other grieving families. In the first letter, he said that he would keep the issue under review. I hope that, when he has time to look at the matter further, the Minister will agree that the trust’s commitment to an independently chaired but internally managed inquiry, although it is a welcome step forward, will not be sufficient to give confidence and ensure that lessons are learned, not only in this individual hospital, but in the entire NHS. Most of all, I hope that he will join me today in sending a message, loud and clear, that the need to be accountable for past mistakes must never be used by the trust as an excuse to remove services that our community clearly needs.

The final part of my speech relates to the crisis caused by the trust’s shock decision to transfer, apparently temporarily, the special care baby unit and consultant maternity services out of Furness general to Royal Lancaster infirmary due to increased sickness absence levels at the trust.

Let me deal first with the shambolic process that has left expectant women unsure about where they can give birth—even now, as we speak, two hours after the transfer was due to take place—because of genuine fears about a lack of ambulance cover. The decision was taken unilaterally by the trust, with no consultation or warning given to the public, the obstetric consultants who work at Furness general, or the GPs responsible for commissioning the services. The option of transferring staff from the Royal Lancaster infirmary was not put to the board. Although there can be no doubt that staffing levels are low at Furness general, there was no detailed risk assessment of the dangers of transferring mums in labour by ambulance. Most alarmingly, no attempt was made to engage the North West ambulance service—this was confirmed to me by the service last night—until last Wednesday evening, leaving that organisation unable to find the extra unit that it estimates will be necessary to cope with the increased demand on an already stretched operation. This is an appalling and potentially dangerous shambles that has greatly increased the anxiety of pregnant women in my constituency, on top of the worry they already felt at the news, during what is naturally one of the most worrying times in their life anyway.

Will the Minister intervene personally to impose order on the chaos? Will he confirm that the regional health authority’s gold command is meeting today to escalate the situation? Will he meet me to ensure that we have the best chance of getting the services we need back as soon as possible? Let me be clear: families in my constituency and beyond will be devastated if we lose consultant-led maternity services permanently. The Minister is a practising obstetrician and will know better than I that the removal of the clinician-led special care baby unit will result in women who expect complicated deliveries or who experience complications during birth facing a transfer to Lancaster, involving a journey time of about one hour along a road that, less than a fortnight ago, became almost impassable due to heavy snow—in fact, journeys between Barrow and Lancaster were taking up to 10 hours. Trying to transfer a mother who needs consultant care in such conditions is hard to imagine.

It has been suggested that air ambulances could be used to speed up transfer times in the event of Furness general hospital’s maternity unit being downgraded, but serious questions need to be answered about the practicality of that proposal. The Great North air ambulance service is a fantastic organisation that helps to save many lives each year, but it has just three helicopters to cover not only Cumbria, but the whole of north-east England and North Yorkshire. We cannot simply assume that the answer lies in the air.

I am immensely proud to be backing the “Thousand Voices” campaign in my constituency, which comprises mums who got together to make themselves heard when they saw the crisis coming. I know that I cannot use props, Mr Howarth, so I will not, but I urge all hon. Members to go to www.YouTube.com/saveFGHmaternity to hear the stories being shared. People are going out and using camera phones to get video clips from mums and dads, wherever they can find them. Let me read just one such story on the site, which reflects the views of hundreds. Mum of three, Christina Pickering, said:

“Due to extreme circumstances in my third pregnancy, I was sent to the Royal Preston hospital to deliver my daughter and that’s got to be one of the most terrifying experiences of my life, being in an unknown hospital, on my own, to deliver my baby. I don’t want this to happen to any mums—it doesn’t have to. Downgrading our maternity services at Furness general would not only be detrimental to mums and babies, but to the whole community. We’ve got to stop this happening.”

Let me end with the Minister’s own words from before he was promoted, which I wholeheartedly endorse. In a Westminster Hall debate in September 2010, he said that,

“generally speaking, if we consider the example of”

other hospitals,

“we see that the push has been to have a low-risk, midwifery-led unit alongside a higher-risk unit. We in obstetrics know that a greater number of women—rising to about 30%—are giving birth by Caesarean section, and that number is going up year on year. Many births that we initially think uncomplicated end up being much more complicated.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 230WH.]

The Minister summed it up perfectly. Families in Furness want the security of knowing that they can have their babies in Barrow with specialist help on hand. They pay for their health services with their taxes and they are speaking with one voice. They need the Government to listen.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I call David Morris, but for two minutes only, as the Minister needs time to respond to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. It is not the first time, but nevertheless it is a pleasure.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and all those in Cumbria who are looked after by the local trust and to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), whose constituency I recently had the pleasure of visiting, for his advocacy on the behalf of his constituents. I have indeed received a copy of the letter sent to him by the chief executive of the NHS trust, which says:

“Whilst it would be wrong of me to second guess the future, I personally find it hard to imagine Lancaster not having emergency services.”

I hope that that is reassuring to him and his constituents.

On the main issues raised in the debate, I have already paid tribute to the strong advocacy on behalf of his constituents by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. He was very kind to brand me an expert in obstetrics. I would not go quite that far, but he is right to say that I have considerable understanding of the issues involved and of the importance of ensuring that we provide safe and comfortable environments in which women can give birth. He is also right to read out the case that I advocated in a debate here in Westminster Hall some time ago, and it is important that we recognise that uncomplicated deliveries can become more complicated. We know that for women in some parts of the country, particularly those in more deprived areas, there are often higher risk rates of prematurity. These are all issues that need to be taken fully into account whenever services for the safe delivery of babies, and for the safe care of women during pregnancy, delivery and the period afterwards, are examined.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to highlight that there are geographical considerations in Cumbria, as in many rural areas, including the fact that there is only one main road and the problems that presents in respect of allowing the local trust to transfer patients effectively and safely from one site to another. It potentially creates difficulties at certain times of day if the road is busy, as he is aware. However, it also requires the availability of ambulances, and he was right to point that out.

When decisions are made about changing services, whatever the reason may be for changing them, they cannot be taken in isolation. In this case––I will discuss this further later––I believe that the decision was made in good faith, although I share some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, given that we know that there have been a lot of problems at the trust with maternity services as well as the safety concerns he outlined. Those decisions cannot be taken in isolation. They need to be taken in collaboration and after discussion with local commissioners and indeed with the ambulance service, if they are to be made correctly and for the benefit of patients.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to outline the four tests for reconfiguration. In particular, he was right that reconfiguration must be clinically led, based upon evidence and always in the best interests of patients. Reconfiguration should never happen for cost reasons alone, and he was absolutely right to highlight that. Reconfiguration also needs to have the support of local GP commissioners. However, from what he has said today it appears that there are local concerns about the proposed changes, and that there has not been an integrated, joined-up approach in relation to this decision.

We have also discussed the concerns over the need to integrate ambulance transfers into any local decisions because of the travelling distance from Barrow to Lancaster. That is one of the issues that should have been take into account when these decisions about reconfiguration were being made, and I am very concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he does not believe that they were taken into account and that local commissioners also have concerns about this matter.

I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman again in the very near future to discuss this; that would be very desirable. It is vital to ensure, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) said, that we do not see service reconfiguration by stealth or via the back door. We should have an integrated, joined-up approach to local decision making, particularly in view of what can only be described as the deficiencies of the past at the trust and the very sad cases that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I have corresponded about, as well as the police investigations that are going on. He is aware that it would be inappropriate for me to comment directly on those.

There is a need to ensure that in the future decisions are made in a holistic way and in the best interests of patient safety. Such decisions are not just for the trust to make alone but must be made in conjunction with the local commissioners and the ambulance service, if we want to ensure patient safety. The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss that further when we meet.

The hon. Gentleman raised another important issue: the ongoing investigations at the trust. He was right to do so. As we know, tomorrow the Mid Staffordshire report will be published, which makes these sorts of issues all the more poignant and important. The NHS has sometimes had a history of covering up bad things that have happened to patients, and that is completely unacceptable. The result of that is bad care for patients, and cultural problems in trusts and hospitals. Those sorts of things cannot go on. When there are investigations, they need to be carried out transparently and openly, so that people feel the issues have been fully aired. It is also vital that those investigations have a degree of independence, as he suggested.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for the excellent and considered way that he is responding to my points. He referred to the Mid Staffordshire situation. Does he accept that that started as an internal inquiry, which was found to be insufficient to get to the bottom of the issues and required a greater degree of independence to be established? We are worried that the same thing may be apparent in Furness.

[Dr Poulter]

Absolutely. There will be a full response to the Mid Staffordshire inquiry tomorrow, so I will not pre-empt it or go into detailed discussion of that issue. However, it is absolutely right that we must encourage staff who have concerns about patient care to raise those concerns and air them in an open way. Moreover, when we know that there have been long-standing failings at a trust about the quality of care provided to patients and concerns raised about those failings—although Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, for example, has made some good progress in recent months, there are some long-standing issues there—it is important that, when an investigation is carried out, it is carried out in a transparent, open and independent way; there must be a great degree of independence involved.

If a trust sees fit to launch an investigation and a review of what has happened, it is important that the investigation and review pass the test of transparency. There may well be a role for local MPs and other interested parties in that process, and when the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I meet, that is an issue that I will be very keen to discuss further, to ensure that we can discuss with the local trust ways in which we can ensure that there is that transparency and independence in the process. That is very important to ensure that those patients, and their families who have had problems in the past—in some cases, there have been deaths at the trust—feel that the investigation addresses their allegations.

Obviously, this debate is not just about maternity services at the Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust; there have been other issues around the trust, and any investigation will need to take account of all those issues. I understand that that is what will happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend has raised that issue in different forms on many occasions, and feels strongly about it. The decision to reconfigure services in his constituency was made locally, and the Hampshire overview and scrutiny committee decided not to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking him to refer it to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, because it presumably believes that it is the right way forward to continue to provide first-class quality care for patients.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that commissioners in Cumbria must bear their share of responsibility for the deep-seated problems in the Morecambe Bay health trust, which have taken far too long to address. Will he join me in urging those commissioners to protect services such as Barrow’s maternity unit in their forthcoming review?

[Mr Lansley]

As we have seen in a number of instances over the years in the NHS, all those responsible should always be aware that, although the responsibility for quality may be, in the first instance, for the board of a trust, it is also the responsibility of those who commission the services. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, one of the key considerations for the future in the development of services is for the NHS to respond to the commissioning intentions of local commissioners. Clearly, the matter that he raised will be determined locally as regards what commissioners require in terms of services from Morecambe Bay trust.

National Health Service

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[John Woodcock]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Hon. Gentlemen, the Minister has given way quite a bit, and I am sure that if he wishes to give way he will let you know. You do not need to keep standing and hovering for so long.

NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I was happy to announce earlier this year that in response to the report by Professor Sir John Bell and his colleagues we will now put resources behind the establishment of genetic testing centres throughout the NHS, which will enable us to undertake what is known as stratified medicine. This means that, by identifying when medicines have particular benefits for patients with certain genetic characteristics or phenotypes, we will be able to target such treatments, as we will be much more certain of their effectiveness and be able to reduce, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the many cases in which medicines are prescribed but turn out not to be effective in a particular patient’s circumstances.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Secretary of State really believes that people will accept Ministers standing back from the consequences of their decisions, will he hear from families in my constituency, who are going to be devastated if, after all the turmoil—of which he is well aware—and after the forthcoming review, they are forced to travel for an hour and for 50 miles to receive consultant-led maternity services?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not construe what we are doing as Ministers stepping back from the consequences of our decisions. The Secretary of State will continue to be responsible for the comprehensive health service, and I fully expect, in the same way as I am making a statement today on the first annual report, that I and my successors will make statements in years to come on annual reports and be held to account for the performance of the service.

The point is that delivering the best possible care is not achieved by Ministers interfering on a day-to-day basis in how the NHS goes about its task. We have been very clear, through today’s mandate, about what we are looking for the NHS to achieve: consistently improving outcomes. We are not trying to tell the NHS to do so.

Any particular service change, such as the one the hon. Gentleman describes, has to meet four tests: being of clear clinical benefit; responding to the needs and wishes of local service commissioners; responding to strong patient and public engagement; and maintaining and protecting patient choice. If there are any questions and objections, stating that such a service change does not achieve those aims, his local authority has the right under legislation to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for its reconsideration, so I am not taking the Secretary of State out of the process completely.

The safe and sustainable review was set up independently by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, and it has been conducted completely independently, but, in the same way as I have just described, if local authorities have grounds for objections, they have also a mechanism, if they wish to use it, for referral.

Midwife and Maternity Services

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by not only congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate, but thanking him for raising the high-profile issue of midwife and maternity services. Those services, and the midwives who work in them, are extremely important to women, and the provision of high-quality maternity care is non-negotiable for a Government and a health service. I want to outline some of the measures that we are taking to improve the quality of that care, but let me first pay my own tribute to the midwives throughout the country who do such a fantastic job.

I hope that you will allow me a brief personal comment, Mr Speaker. My four children were delivered in four different hospitals, but in each of those instances the midwife had a profound impact on the experience, and a profound impact on the start that we made with a new little family member. I know that it will have been the same for many other families. The importance of midwives and maternity services cannot be overestimated.

We want to ensure that all pregnant women and new mothers receive the best care that it is possible to give. As my hon. Friend has said, and as other Members will know only too well, maternity services face increasing challenges, and they will have to evolve to meet those challenges. Over the last few years the birth rate has been rising, and the number of complex pregnancies is rising as well. There are also more high-risk births. Women are having babies when they are older, heart disease and obesity are increasing, and more mothers born outside the United Kingdom are giving birth here.

Impressive improvements have been made in many services. The Care Quality Commission’s 2010 survey of women’s experiences of maternity services found that 92% of the women surveyed rated their care during pregnancy as excellent, very good or good, 94% rated their care during labour and birth as excellent, very good or good, and 89% rated their care after birth as excellent, very good or good. I hate statistics as they can seem meaningless and dry. It is important to congratulate the midwives who achieved those satisfaction figures, but we should never forget that if 94% of women rated their care during birth as good or better, then 6% thought they did not get care that was good enough. That might not seem like a large proportion, but for the women concerned it is all that matters.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have written to the Minister about the high-profile problems at the Furness General maternity unit, triggered by personal tragedies. What reassurances can she give on the future of that unit? More generally, what can she do to ensure that trusts with poor performing services in need of investment get the resources they need to deliver the first-class care people in my constituency and the whole country rightly expect?

[Anne Milton]

I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about those issues, and I will come on to discuss the measures we want to put in place to ensure such past tragedies do not happen again. CQC reviews have corroborated that there are problems. It raises concerns about the safety and quality of maternity care in some areas. They are small but significant areas of concern, and they must be of note to all involved in this area of care, especially as sometimes they involve personal and family tragedies.

Media and public attention on maternity services has picked up pace over the last year. In particular, there is anxiety about safety, capacity and changes to services. In many respects, there is a “perfect storm” of circumstances, which makes things difficult. The issue is how well we react, and how well services evolve and the work force are equipped to react positively.

We have put extending maternity choice as a key priority in the NHS operating framework. To help communities achieve the desired outcomes in the most individually suitable ways, when services change, that change will be led by clinicians, midwives, and women—the very people who run and use those services.

To make sure the maternity infrastructure is being put to best use, I want there to be maternity provider networks across the country, bringing together all the different elements of maternity services, so there are no gaps or hidden corners where mothers might get substandard care. The incident that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) raised involves precisely such hidden corners and gaps, and such incidents often result in a personal tragedy. Hospitals, GP surgeries, charities and community groups can all be linked up to share information, expertise and services.

We also want more efficient use of skills in maternity wards themselves. Obstetricians and gynaecologists, maternity support workers and, of course, midwives can come together and use their complementary skills and expertise to get the best results for mothers, with appropriately trained support workers providing valuable assistance, for example with breastfeeding, leaving midwives to concentrate on the more specialist areas. This is not just a numbers game; it is about getting the skills, expertise and team mix exactly right. That will mean the talents of all 27,000 midwives can be put to the best, most efficient, use. That number shows that more midwives are working in the NHS now than ever before. The picture looks good for the future, too, because it is backed up by a record number of midwives entering training. Subject to the number of forecast births, that will be maintained.

In July, we published “Supporting Families in the Foundation Years”. That report does not have the catchiest of titles, but it is important because it sets out how everyone who commissions, delivers or leads on something can work to support parents and families. We cannot overstate the importance of the health and well-being of women before, during and after pregnancy; it is a critical factor in giving children a good start and in continuing that good health and well-being as they get older. The latest data show that more than 90% of women who gave birth in the third quarter of 2010-11 saw a maternity health professional within 12 and a half weeks. That is another dry statistic, but it is crucial. Early intervention and early contact with a maternity health professional is crucial to the well-being of not only the mother, but the child. Those meetings are about more than just basic maternity care. Work will have been done on, and discussions will have been had about, things such as diet, exercise, smoking and drinking. This is about improving the health of the baby, the mother and the whole family, and decreasing the kind of health inequalities that remain and are so persistent in our society. All those things affect the outcome for those women and their babies, and the lasting impact of those things cannot be underestimated.

To back all that work up, from April a maternity experience indicator will be introduced as part of the NHS outcomes framework. That will be an important part of identifying those gaps, as it will allow us to chart a woman’s experience of care throughout antenatal care, labour, delivery and post-natal care. It will also allow women and their partners to compare people’s experience of care and make choices about what they want to do. It will be a valuable tool for midwives as well, as they will be able to see how they are doing in relation to peer organisations. If they are doing well, this will drive them on to maintain their level and if there are weaknesses, the experience indicator will show specific areas to improve. As I say, this is not about the numbers; it is about getting the team mix right. In one busy maternity unit that I visited, it was simply about moving women around the labour facilities effectively and efficiently.

The Department of Health funded the “Birthplace in England” study, which was published in November last year. It provided evidence about the expected outcomes for women and their babies at “low risk” of complications. It was the first study of its type in this country, and the findings will be a very important part in shaping maternity services, as well as other, linked parts of the NHS, such as ambulance services, so that every part of the system is working together. It is an extremely important body of evidence. In addition, we have asked the Centre for Workforce Intelligence to carry out an in-depth study of the nursing and maternity work force to determine whether we have the right skill mix and professional teams, and whether they are able to deliver what is needed. That will start this year and will inform the future commissioning of training places.

I hope that what I have said reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and other hon. Members in the Chamber that we are continuing to improve maternity services to women, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their circumstance; it is not good enough to give excellent care in one place and for services to be patchy elsewhere. We want consistently high-quality care and we will carry on with that process, making sure maternity services and midwives are fully prepared for the demands of the modern maternity landscape.

I know that my hon. Friend has had specific issues to deal with in his local area and that they have been ongoing for many years. I am also aware that the picture is complex in terms of the circumstances of the women who end up using the local services. I hope that I have reassured him, to some extent, that we have taken note of what is going on. There is no doubt that the birth of a baby is a very special moment and we want it to be a positive experience that shapes the future of not only the child and their mother, but the whole family.

Question put and agreed to.