Junior Doctors’ Contract Negotiations

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is right that new measures have been introduced in the proposed contract. A new guardian role, which was proposed by NHS Employers, will help to protect the hours of junior doctors in individual trusts. That has been a point of success in the negotiation between the BMA and NHS Employers. A new fines system, which is not currently in place, will penalise trusts and ensure that the moneys that are generated by the fines go towards enhancing the general wellbeing and training of doctors within those trusts.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Obviously, I am disappointed that it is not the Secretary of State we are speaking to today. The Minister referred again to weekend deaths. I gently point out that if one studies the evidence from Freemantle, one sees that there is a lower level of deaths at weekends. Perhaps we might be a bit more precise and say that we are talking about people admitted at weekends who die within the next 30 days.

I welcome the commitment to increase diagnostics and social care, as I think will everyone in the NHS, but junior doctors already work seven days and seven nights a week, so I really do not see how they can be the barrier to the safety of patients.

I do think that, on looking back, the Secretary of State and the Minister may regret how this matter has been handled. Right from last summer, it has been so combative. In October, when we debated the junior doctors, the Secretary of State was still refusing to go to ACAS, so this cannot all be put on the BMA. Doctors are not stupid; they are capable of reading what has been offered. Many of the junior doctors who have written to me have talked about the fear of hours getting out of control. When I was a junior doctor, the hours were ridiculous and it was the automatic financial penalty on trusts that changed things. It is important that their concerns are listened to and that they are not patronised, as they were on the Marr show yesterday. That has aggravated things further, and the way in which this process has been dealt with from beginning to end has been really disappointing.

We are facing the second day of strike for the first time in 40 years—that is my entire career. What does the Minister feel will be brought to the table by the Department of Health in the next few days to try to get out of this and to try a different approach? We do not have junior doctors on the streets in Scotland. He has to ask himself why we have them on the streets here.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady speaks from experience, and rightly points to the fact that avoidable mortality that is attributable to weekends is different from mortality at weekends—the Secretary of State has been clear about that in his public statements. However that gap does exist, as the hon. Lady knows, and Professor Sir Bruce Keogh was clear in his statements that there is an avoidable rate of mortality. He stated:

“There is an avoidable ‘weekend effect’ which if addressed could save lives. This is something that we as clinicians should collectively seek to solve. It also strengthens the moral and professional case for concerted action.”

The way in which the hon. Lady characterised the discussions in September, October and November is not quite right. We implored the BMA to come and talk; I personally had those discussions with leaders of the BMA, and they refused to do so. It was only when they came and talked to us that we made substantive progress.

The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues, and we wanted to discuss such matters with the BMA. One issue was protection against excess hours, but we had no counterparty with whom to negotiate. Since we have had that counterparty, we have made good moments of progress, and the result is the guardian position, which she welcomed in another place. The guardian will be able to levy fines, and those fines will be remitted to the guardian. I hope—and indeed expect—that process to reduce the excess hours that we still see in a small minority of positions. We must get away from the perverse incentives for trusts and a small minority of doctors that mean that unsafe working hours are perpetuated.

Of course we all regret the course that this dispute has taken, but it would not have done so had the BMA taken a responsible position from the beginning. If people lie to their members and say that they will have their pay cut and their hours raised, of course doctors will be angry—all of us would be. The fact is that that was never true, but it has inflamed the situation. We could have had the kind of productive talks that we have had over the past three or four weeks back in August, September and October had we not had all the mess beforehand because of untruthful statements issued by the BMA.

NHS Trusts: Finances

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the increase in the better care fund that this Government have introduced and the 2% precept on council tax bills that will deliver increases for social care. She will also be aware that “Five Year Forward View” is a holistic understanding of the healthcare system that includes transformation of the NHS and social care towards that point. That is why we are proud to fund “Five Year Forward View” in the manner that Simon Stevens requested —front-loaded, with £3.8 billion in the next year. The manner of that bottom-up integration over the next few years will ensure that the challenge around social care that my hon. Friend identifies will be addressed in years to come.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

With almost 80% of trusts running a deficit, I am not sure that we can say that it is just failing hospitals that are having problems. The Government talk about giving £10 billion upfront, but £2.2 billion of that is already written off in the deficit, and usually budgets are ascribed across the Department of Health, whereas Public Health England and Health Education England are losing money. With the £3 billion that is being clawed back from the areas that are not specifically under NHS England, it is actually £4.5 billion, not £8 billion, that is being put in. “Five Year Forward View” identified public health and prevention as crucial. The Government have a plan to recruit 5,000 extra GPs, but I am not sure how that can be done without Health Education England. The one thing that has so far been shown in evidence to impact on unnecessary deaths is a good, strong ratio of registered nurses to patients, so it is important that we look at how that will be funded. If trusts are not allowed agency or immigrant nurses, how are they going to do this? Why do we not get the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to finish the piece of work on safe nursing levels throughout hospitals?

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the hon. Lady, who asked some salient questions that I will address. She asked about the deficits across the system. It is true that there are some particularly challenged providers where the heaviest deficits fall, and they account for the larger part of the accumulated deficit, but it has been a very challenging time across the system, not only because of the demographic challenges facing the NHS that have got worse in every year of this and the previous Parliaments, but because of the effect of the excessive charges of agencies levied after the increase in staffing levels in the wake of Mid Staffs. To seek to address that area, which makes up the majority of the cost of the deficit, we have brought in the controls not only on agency spend—on locums—but on very high salaries and on consultancy spend. Taken together, that will make a significant difference to hospital trust finances.

The hon. Lady talked about public health. We accept that that is a very important part of achieving “Five Year Forward View”. That is why, over the course of this Parliament, we will invest £16 billion in public health across England, to ensure that we can achieve the kind of transformation that she wishes to see.

On GP recruitment, we intend to have 5,000 additional GPs by the end of this Parliament. I am glad to say that Health Education England is so far meeting its targets in filling those training places. I congratulate its chief executive, Professor Ian Cumming, on the work he has done in that regard.

The hon. Lady mentioned safe staffing and the NICE guidelines. During the process of NICE looking at safe staffing levels, it became clear, as the chief nurse identified, that we need to look more broadly at team staffing levels, not just at individual positions on wards. I think that the hon. Lady in particular will understand that. That is why the chief nurse and Dr Mike Durkin were commissioned together to look at and build on the advice of NICE. The safe staffing guidance, which will be released in the next few months, will show a broader and more complex understanding of staffing levels, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate from her time on the wards.

I want to be clear that that staffing guidance will be signed off only once it has the approval of NICE, Professor Sir Mike Richards, the Care Quality Commission and Dr Mike Durkin, the head of safety and quality at NHS England. It will require their imprimatur.

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady will clarify what she is saying. The database that is referred to in the Bill will share information on drugs and trials that ought to be available to anyone, whether a pharmacist, a GP or a doctor. It is simply about information sharing. Is she referring more to a database of patient information from which we can learn in the future? Obviously, that is outwith the scope of the Bill, but it has been held back by the various data challenges that have been faced.

[Jo Churchill]

I apologise. Yes, I have confused the two, because I really believe that if we are not careful, what we do today will have an effect on our ability to bring that second broader database to fruition, which would give us the information we need to drive the trials, the life science industry and so on. Databases need to be fit for purpose. I could not have put it better than the hon. Lady did. We want the database that we are talking about today to be fit for purpose, but we do not want to put too many constraints or too much rope around it if that will stop us moving forward with clinical trials and with the whole area of genomics and patients.

I want every life to mean or have meant something. A patient should be able to choose to give knowledge as their legacy. Data hold the answers—the answer for my constituent whose two-year-old had a brain tumour; the answer for a family I know who have diabetes in several generations; the answer for a family member whose humour is tested by Parkinson’s that attacks his body. Personalised medicine should be a reality. As was pointed out in a paper yesterday, we are doing great things with CRISPR—clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats—and across the piece.

Like me, every patient is somebody’s parent, partner, child or friend. That must not be forgotten. If the database we are discussing allows for information to be given that is appropriate to the individual, with care taken by the clinician right through the pipeline, it has to become a force for good. We should not wrap it up in too many constraints, but should allow it to develop. We must allow the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences to give us a lead in how to proceed in this field in the most effective manner.

The use of data offers the possibility to accelerate medical trialling from seven to two years and to link research together to find new insights. My glasses are not rose-tinted. I would want assurances about the use of my data, as any sensible person would. I want the recommendations of the accelerated access review to be implemented. The use of health data will be central to solving this country’s health challenges, not least in terms of cost, and its economic challenges. Our medical future will be uncertain unless we unleash the potential of information about patients for patients. I therefore support the Minister’s proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, but in responding to amendments 8 and 9, which were tabled by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I know that, when the Secretary of State and the Minister choose to use the power conferred on them in the Bill, they will confer far and wide on how the database is set up and used. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have an opportunity at that time to put her point in the consultation on how wide and extensive the database should be.

I mentioned Emma’s story because it was about evidence sharing within our existing system, which every single Member would like. Of Emma’s treatment, the NHS stated that it could not find evidence to approve the effectiveness of the operation that saved Emma’s life, and then withdrew funding for it. However, in its consultation on the matter, the NHS did not talk to the surgeons at the hospital where Emma was treated. There is a general point. I could tell hundreds if not thousands of stories in which a simple flow of information and data, or innovation or other things in our NHS, could improve the quality and type of care that is given to patients.

Amendment 15—the Minister’s amendment—states:

“References in section 2 to medical treatment include references to treatment carried out for the purposes of medical research (but nothing in section 2 is to be read as affecting the regulation of medical research)”.

That is an important amendment because it signals the Government’s intention to use the database wisely when it comes to dealing with research. Research has come on in leaps and bounds, meaning that a huge number of new treatments are coming into our NHS through clinical trials and innovative ideas everywhere in the system.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Although people who work in an academic unit will be very aware of trials—a lot of trials are UK-wide, but European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trials are Europe-wide and occasionally there are worldwide trials—people who work in district general hospitals, where there might be greater numbers of certain types of patients, are often less aware. Adding a listing of trials under any disease topic or area of clinical practice could be helpful in attracting clinicians to say, “I am aware that you can access a trial in Birmingham or Manchester.” The measure might promote trials to the busy clinician who is not directly involved in academic research.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I completely concur. I can foresee great benefits for those in the outer reaches of the NHS who do not necessarily come across information about many of the trials that are taking place. One of the biggest criticisms of the original formulation of my Bill was the fear in connection with getting people on to clinical trials. I would like to think that we have not just overcome that issue, with the amendments we are discussing and the latest version of the Bill, but have gone some way along the line to help improve the ability of registered medical practitioners to have knowledge of such trials. I completely concur with the hon. Lady’s point. We have innovation everywhere, so there is a real purpose behind having a database, regardless of whether the Minister has had the ability to set one up before now.

On research, Lord Winston made a very important point particularly well in the other place on Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill. He stated:

“There is no question that in the field of treatment there is a great deal of research.”

He had a list of a number of chemotherapeutic agents that were being looked at, saying:

“In recent years I can count at least 10 or 11”.

He then went on to name them. They are impossible for me to pronounce, so I will not do so here today. He said that,

“there are various combinations of those therapies with other well-known mitotoxic agents. These have included trials”.

He went on to say:

“Other treatments have been researched: of course there is surgery…and there are now attempts to try to reduce the tumour inside the lung membranes.”

He spoke about three trials that Cancer Research UK is conducting to emphasise the wide range of “stuff”, as he put it, that is going on.

“One is some work with HSV1716, which is a virus that acts against dividing cancer cells. It comes from the herpes virus…a very good example of where we might make a breakthrough in treatment. Then there is a different strand of research with ADI-PEG 20, which in combination with other drugs such as cisplatin affects a particular amino acid in the chain of cell division”—

which could prevent cancer cells from multiplying.

“That has been specifically targeted for the treatment of mesothelioma. A compound, GSK3052230, developed by GSK, is I think about to enter phase 3 trials very shortly. That attacks the FGFR1 gene, and therefore stops cancer cells growing.”

This is where he makes the point exactly:

“There is now an increasing emphasis on understanding that, if we are going to improve outcomes for patients with a variety of different cancers, and other chronic long-term conditions, we need to move away from a generalised approach to managing disease towards personalised, precision medicine”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 395-7.]

Medicine is going to change. Research is going to change. Spreading the information about that across our NHS, and how quickly we can do that and learn from success and failure in our NHS, is a very, very important matter.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I truly believe that personalised medicine will become a reality. I would like to think that a database would aid the spread of knowledge about how individual medicines are being used and who they might affect in different ways, so yes, I nearly completely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Dr Whitford]

I have two small points. First, personalised medicine, particularly for breast cancer, has been evolving for years. Right from when we could tell whether a cancer fed on the female hormone oestrogen or not, we were targeting the treatments towards patients. We have been moving that way and it will accelerate.

I know it is not the subject of the Bill, but I hope that the accelerated access review will consider in general how we get drugs to patients—a subject that we debate relentlessly in Westminster Hall. I see a negative feedback loop coming from among colleagues who used to be trialists, such as myself. We registered patients and did all the work to take part in research, but when the drugs were finally made available, the NHS could not afford them. We need a totally different way of accessing those drugs. The companies want to sell them, and we and patients want them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who will give a much more informed answer.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

I think the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has a much greater admiration for what a computer on a desk can access at that moment when a GP has a 10-minute appointment. What they are actually looking at is the patient’s records. They also have the ability to prescribe, but to track something down they would have to shut those systems down and go into something else, as with searching the internet. They cannot do that live, in front of a patient, and that brings up an important point. If the new system is meant to be used live, in front of patients, it will have to interact with the NHS computer systems, which someone can literally click on and use to look things up relatively easily, in the way we look things up in the BNF at the moment.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

It is important that doctors are aware of the changing methods by which care is being delivered. Innovation in the delivery of care must be recognised in the tapestry that is our wonderful national health service. I fully welcome the Minister’s amendment to my Bill. It makes it more worth while. The improvements we are making to the Bill today are dramatic, but they have not come out of thin air; they have come from a great deal of work. A great deal of thought has gone into them, which I very much appreciate.

Finally, and briefly, let me turn to amendments 8 and 9, in the name of the right hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander).

Access To Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

What we are discussing could be a new system. Finally, it speaks about, “Delivering change”. I look to the Minister to make those five commitments work with off-patent, repurposed drugs for everyone in the UK.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I rise to support new clauses 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and amendments 10 and 13. The only reason new clause 4 does not stand in my name is that it relates to NHS England, which is outwith my purview.

People are well aware of my objections to clauses 3 and 4. Many Members in this House and medical voices outside the House have real concerns about the danger to patients of doctors having to convince only one colleague before trying a completely unproven approach. As well as the danger to patients, I feel that there is a danger to our clinical trials system. Why would someone go through applications, a year of paperwork and phases 1, 2 and 3, when they could just cut to the chase?

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for being willing to sit around a table with the Members who were named by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the Minister, and to start with a blank sheet of paper and work out how we could do something useful. It has been a great procedure. I welcome the fact that later in the day the hon. Member for Daventry will propose the removal of the clauses on innovative practice and litigation.

Turning to the off-patent drugs proposals, 6 November was a very frustrating day in this House. Every single Member who spoke from the Back Benches spoke in favour of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, but the time ran away during the Minister’s response—not the Minister who is here today. That debate showed the appetite across the House to get something done on off-patent drugs.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) has explained most of what I was going to explain. There is still the issue that while specialists are steeped in the evidence and used to using drugs off label, those who are not are less sure. There is no automatic place where they can check a dose or an indication. Sometimes, it is the general practitioner who does not carry it through. We have had lots of discussions in this House about the changes in the NHS and the evolution to multidisciplinary teams out in the community. That means that there are far more non-medical prescribers. The further someone is from the expert prescriber, the less comfortable they are. They do not have easy access to somewhere they can check when they think, “Is that just my bad handwriting or is that really what I mean?” That is what new clause 6 on the BNF could achieve.

The BNF is used by everyone and is on every desk in the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds said, people can either check a drug that they have had a letter about from the hospital or look something up when they think, “I don’t have anything for this. What exists?” We will also discuss that when we come to the database proposals. I welcome the fact that the database has been changed from being a registry of people doing their own thing to a place where information is shared.

On new clause 5, which I tabled, although the inclusion of off-patent drugs in the BNF will achieve the sharing of information and will, in a sense, give them a slightly informal kite mark, I feel that it is important to look eventually at providing a licence. The reason for my concern relates to the drug simvastatin, which is used all over the place to control people’s cholesterol and has been found to be useful in multiple sclerosis—a disease that plagues many people and causes a lot of suffering, and for which, frankly, we do not have a lot to offer. That drug is incredibly cheap, but if a company decides to tweak a little molecule of it, call it something else and put it out as a new wonder-drug for multiple sclerosis, we will be having debates in Westminster Hall about a drug that costs fifty grand and that the NHS cannot afford. Under General Medical Council rules, the cascade is still that a doctor must prescribe a licensed drug over an unlicensed or off-label one, regardless of cost. If a doctor was faced with fifty grand for simvastatin-new versus sixpence for the simvastatin we all know, they would have no choice, and we would be right back in the same position—relentlessly discussing the NHS’s access to drugs.

The drugs we are talking about are already safe. They have had a patent and been used for so long that they are now off patent, which means that they have been around for a decade. We know their side effects, the common dosages and what to look out for. They should not have to start at point zero of the licensing process. We need a short licensing system, so that patient groups, academics, charities and the British Generic Manufacturers Association can say, “We think there is something useful here.” We have put provisions in new clauses 2 and 3 for the NIHR and NICE to have capacity in their systems to provide a funnel for evidence on such drugs.

These drugs are not developed by big pharma, so there are not huge costs that have to be recouped. The purposes of them are usually found by academics and clinicians, so pharmaceutical companies should not make a massive profit out of them. The benefit should be that the NHS can afford them and patients can access them. We have many debates about access to medical treatments in the House, usually in Westminster Hall and usually about drugs that are eye-wateringly expensive. In this case we are talking about drugs that are proven and cheap. We need to come up with a system that makes them accessible to patients.

I commend the Minister for the time, that, as others have said, he has given the four of us around a few tables, hammering these provisions together. I hope that we will be supported in working them through and actually doing some good for the NHS and our patients.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this important Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and the amendments he has tabled. Specifically, I rise to support amendment 13. I am sure that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) will be disappointed that his private Member’s Bill did not make it to Committee stage, but I hope that he is happy to see some of it included in this Bill.

I had my reservations about the Bill as it stood originally, and I have reservations about some of the amendments, but I believe that amendment 13 will increase the use of off-label drugs in a safe and secure way. Those drugs can often be a cheaper and quicker way to tackle a disease, as they do not have to go through the rigmarole of being developed and licensed, which can take many years and many billions of pounds. NICE states that an unlicensed medicine is one that

“does not have a UK marketing authorisation and is not expected to do so in the next 2 years”,

whereas an off-label medicine is one

“with an existing UK marketing authorisation that is…used outside the terms of its marketing authorisation”,

and for which

“it is not expected that the existing UK marketing authorisation will be extended to cover this use in the next 2 years.”

The inclusion of off-label use classes in the database as innovative medical treatments will allow the medical profession to see where off-label use has been effective, even if it is at the other end of the country. However, we must be careful not to place off-label uses on a pedestal and allow people to cling on to false hope. They are the most vulnerable people in our society, often looking for any treatment that may help them, but we must ensure that any drug that is prescribed off label is used responsibly and ethically. I believe that the database will help by allowing doctors to see what is effectively a large sample trial that gives them more information on a particular treatment. I therefore support amendments 13 and 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. This is, of course, UK-wide. One of the challenges, as a UK Minister, is to put in place a framework that will support this across the UK while respecting the different mechanisms in the devolved Administrations. I hope the Bill will provide a basis for a similar mechanism in areas where there are different formats. I believe that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, there is a hunger to do that. I believe the Bill will support those existing mechanisms.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

We have moved on from talking about the BNF. I accept the comments about listing groups that would be considered in new clause 5. Does the Minister accept, however, that we still need to deal with the cascade of prescribing to ensure doctors are not forced to prescribe a licensed medicine, which is actually just a minimal moderation of an off-patent drug at a vastly expensive cost? That means we still need some kind of change to the licensing or short licensing process in the future.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the classification of different drugs available to clinicians. Without detaining the House with too long a peroration on that classification, it is worth setting out that there is a clear cascade.

Clinicians can use unlicensed medicines in situations where, in their clinical judgment, and with patient consent, they believe it is the right thing to do. They are subject to all their usual professional undertakings. There are then off-label uses of drugs: drugs that do not have a licence for a particular indication but which the clinician, on the basis of evidence, is able to prescribe when they feel that evidence is compelling. The Bill now goes to the heart of that and will help to provide reassurance. For many clinicians, being able to click on a mouse with their patient and say, “For your condition there are one, two, three or no off-label medicines available for which NICE has looked at the evidence,” would be a powerful catalyst in helping to promote off-label use. There are generic drugs, which have been patented and brought to market, that are available at a heavily discounted open price.

There are then on-patent drugs, which have been brought to market and are still subject to a patent. The manufacturer has an exclusivity, which is the period in which their sunk costs in bringing the medicine to the system, can be reimbursed. That is an important protection to make sure we continue to have a thriving life science sector that can take the risks of investing in new drugs. Typically, new drugs take 15 years and £2 billion to develop. If there were no patenting mechanism, there would simply be no enthusiasm to do that research, which has a very high failure rate. In law, there is a key point of principle, which is that a licensed drug should be used first and that an unlicensed drug cannot be used purely on the basis of cost. That is a really important principle. An unlicensed drug can, however, be used on the basis of evidence. That is why the mechanism will allow NICE to look at the evidence and to signal to clinicians that they have the evidence basis on which to use the drug in an off-label indication.

One of the issues we have dealt with in discussions is the whole question of the European licensing of medicines. If we were to go down that route—I know the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire understands this—I can assure the House we would be here not just for weeks and months, but years. I am leading for the Government on reforming the European landscape of 21st medical research. The central role of protecting innovators’ sunk costs is really important to our life sciences sector, and the new clauses and amendments create a mechanism by which we can accelerate off-label use without running a coach and horses through that.

[Dr Whitford]

I accept the Minister’s points, but my concern remains that if in 10 years we have simvastatin in its current form versus a new name that is just a tweaked simvastatin at a thousand times the price, doctors will, under GMC rules, have to go for the one with the licence, as opposed to the off-patent one, even if it is in the BNF. I accept that the BNF mechanism will absolutely increase usage, but we still need to consider the longer term, given that in the future we might have huge numbers of off-patent drugs with new purposes.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting, important and useful point that I undertake to pick up in our consultation in response to the accelerated access review. The landscape will continue to change fast over the next few years. The Bill, as amended, will promote the greater use of off-label medicines. Crucially, the database mechanism, which, I reassure everybody, is very different from the original registry proposed in a precursor Bill—it is to make clinicians aware of what drugs are available—will generate data that will be incredibly powerful in helping the system to adapt and use the freedoms I hope to give it through the accelerated access review. That will ensure we are better and faster at getting these repurposed medicines into use.

I am delighted to say that the Government are happy to support amendments 10 and 13. Amendment 10 would set out in the Bill that its purpose specifically includes promoting access to the innovative use of licensed medicines outside their licence indications. It puts four square at the heart of the Bill the aims of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and which, as hon. Members across the House have commented, had a lot of in-principle support. I am pleased, therefore, that we have found a form of words that moves it forward. At the heart of it, there is a clever protection for clinical sovereignty. We are not telling clinicians what they have to prescribe or putting in law a requirement that they prescribe in a particular way. We are giving them information on evidence-based off-label drugs. The feedback from clinicians so far is that it genuinely will help them to understand, promote and prescribe off-label uses.

Amendment 13 seeks to clarify the definition in the Bill of innovative medical treatments to make it clear that it includes off-label and unlicensed medicines. I mentioned earlier the pace at which genomics and informatics were uncovering new uses for drugs—some have referred to it as finding diamonds in the dustbin. There are extraordinary applications among the existing pharmacopoeia of tens of thousands of drugs. We now realise that many of them have particular impacts and effects. That is all to the good. It is thanks to the power of our life sciences sector that we are beginning to uncover those, and the Bill will support that.

With those comments in support of amendments 10 and 13, I hope I have given hon. Members enough reassurance and that they feel able to withdraw or not press the probing new clauses. I will be happy, following Third Reading, to put in place, through the accelerated access programme, a clear plan for keeping on top of the system’s implementation and tracking the use of repurposed medicines. We will continue with the work we did with charities through the winter and with the very helpful discussions we had with the charitable sector, and the Department will look annually at the data and whether the landscape is changing, and if it is, we will keep that under review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I just thought I would check about amendment 13, Mr Deputy Speaker. This whole experience has been a steep learning curve when it comes to procedure in the House. Perhaps we have invented a few things on the side as well, given how we have gone about our business here. I do not want to speak too soon, but if we could conduct all our health debates in the positive and constructive tone that has characterised these debates and the process behind the Bill, we might improve our heath service in leaps and bounds, rather than getting caught up in unnecessary politics. But that is where we are.

My amendments 1, 2 and 3 would remove, among other provisions, two clauses on clinical negligence. I want to talk about the reasons for their removal and the original idea behind the clauses. As right. hon. and hon. Members who have been following the progress of my Bill will know, many of the ideas in it came from Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill in another place. Those ideas have not had the smoothest of journeys in this place. I have been regularly reminded by hon. Members—I thank those here today—and others outside this place that these clauses have not enjoyed the support of stakeholders.

Such concerns have been around since before the Bill was even drafted. Unfortunately, the echoes of those concerns haunted the first mention of the word “innovation” in the clause, and I decided from conversations I have had that those concerns could not be quelled in time. Throughout the process, I was clear that I wanted to listen to everybody with something to say on this matter. I have met and read the briefings of everyone who has contacted me wishing to share their views, and I hope it has been evident that I have been up front, honest and very clear about my intentions. I tried to solve the concerns of Members and the medical community who believed the clause would have negative and unintended consequences. That is why I tabled these amendments.

I hope that this process reflects favourably on Parliament and shows how a piece of possible legislation can evolve with a huge amount of stakeholder engagement and with parliamentary opinion taken on board. Since the beginning, I have focused on the sharing of good practice and transparency—and, indeed, on the failures of treatments through a database. Those ideas are reflected in clause 2 and have received much support.

I wanted to maintain the camaraderie built up around the Bill and have been unable to find the support I needed for the more controversial clauses, 3 and 4. Clause 3 sets out the steps that a doctor would need to take to show that he or she had acted responsibly using the Bill. They were intended to reflect the steps that a responsible doctor could be expected to take under common law when innovating. In relation to a proposed treatment, clause 3 would require the innovating doctor to

“obtain the views of…appropriately qualified doctors”

with

“appropriate expertise and experience in dealing with patients with the condition in question.”

Clause 4 expressly preserves the common-law Bolam test, the key precedent for judging whether a doctor has acted negligently.

The two clauses received strong opposition, which I will not go into too much. However, I worked closely with many officials from the Department of Health, and I want to thank them, because I had read the briefings that were so adamant in saying how dangerous parts of the Bill would be, so it was nice to have some of the best and brightest legal and parliamentary counsel remind me again and again that they viewed them as perfectly safe and did not see them as a danger to patients.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the danger of undermining our clinical trials systems, in that, using the Bill, a doctor would have to convince only one colleague before they could go ahead and try something completely new? The recent tragedy of the patient who died while taking part in a phase 1 trial shows the need for steps and procedures to reduce the risk.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady knows that I would obviously have preferred to retain clauses 3 and 4, but I have to agree with her: the body of opinion stands on her side of the argument, not mine, so the simple answer is yes.

I remind the House, though, that there was a decent and honourable purpose behind clauses 3 and 4. Dr John Hickey, the former head of a primary care trust, contacted me to say that,

“as a registered medical practitioner, a former NHS Trust Chairman and with 30 years’ experience in the field of legal medicine with the Medical Protection Society (last five years as Chief Executive), I believe I am adequately qualified to comment on your Bill.”

He went on to say:

“Over the last 30 years I have seen how doctors have increasingly practised defensive medicine…because of the fear of litigation and disciplinary action by their regulators; this defensiveness is not in patients’ best interests.”

In fact, it may interest Members to hear that, in reading the debates on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the recent debate on the Mesothelioma (Amendment) Bill, I have seen much stated that supports the action I wanted to take in clauses 3 and 4 to reassure doctors who fear litigation. For example, the British Medical Association’s parliamentary brief for the Second Reading of the Off-patent Drugs Bill stated that there were

“two barriers to the use of off-patent drugs in a new indication: 1) Clinicians’ confidence in prescribing: clinicians take on a personal and professional liability if they prescribe an off-patent drug in a new indication”,

and therefore they require reassurance. The brief goes on:

“GMC guidance also indicated a greater level of responsibility for the doctor prescribing off-label and therefore potential greater risk of liability which would be a disincentive for a doctor prescribing off-label drugs”.

That is a simple statement of the purpose of clauses 3 and 4: to give doctors a supplementary way to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing where they might want to do something they believe to be in their patients’ best interests, in a fully evidenced, responsible and honest way.

Similarly, the Multiple Sclerosis Society’s brief on the same subject states:

“Guidance from the General Medical Council is clear that a doctor takes on an extra level of personal liability when prescribing off-label, which would be a significant disincentive to prescribing”.

Breast Cancer Now says that, because of personal liability,

“doctors can be unwilling to prescribe drugs for new purposes, even where…clinical evidence is strong”.

As Lord Freyberg stated in the mesothelioma debate in the other place,

“The fastest way to save lives is to see if the drugs for common cancers work on the rarer ones as well, given the shared mechanism of disease across cancer. This is off-label research and until we fix the issue of liability, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, we will continue to send thousands, like my sister, to an early grave.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 407.]

There was therefore plenty of reason and evidence to support clauses 3 and 4, but I guess politics is all about being pragmatic, and I believe that the provisions that we have already discussed are worthy in themselves of inclusion in a sensible Bill, because they will do some positive things. It is therefore with some reluctance, as I am sure the House will understand, that I have decided to table these amendments, which strike the elements relating to clinical negligence from my Bill.

NHS and Social Care Commission

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I said at the start that I am primarily focused on England because health is a devolved responsibility, but I also said that the same pressures apply everywhere, and so the case for a process of this sort in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland is just as strong as it is England. I would encourage this debate to take place in Wales as well. We must overcome the clashes between the parties to recognise that something bigger is going on and we need to work together.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I want to return to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the data. Last June, we had a debate about moving from weekly to monthly data, and we were told that the NHS would still know what was going on. We now have a six-week delay in the publication of those monthly data, which results in a total of 10 weeks. Having asked about this at the most recent Health questions, I understand that people within the NHS can access the data, so why are they not being shared with this place? The last data we had was in November.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the “Five Year Forward View”, but I would respond by saying that Simon Stevens has referred to prevention and social care as “unfinished business” from the spending review. If we are to deliver the plan, we need to listen to his views and be mindful of the fact that spending on social care actually saves the NHS money. We cannot separate social care from the NHS, and we should not ignore his wise words on the importance of prevention in delivering the “Five Year Forward View”.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Is it not the case that when Simon Stevens was before the Health Committee, he said that a quarter of the £22 billion of savings that were hoped for would have to come from prevention and public health, yet that is being cut?

[Dr Wollaston]

Indeed; I remember that too. I agree that unless we up our game and redouble our efforts on prevention, we will not achieve the savings that are required to close the gap in the “Five Year Forward View”. That is why I wanted to touch on prevention first.

There is another area that we need to do much more on here and now. We need to have a relentless focus on variation across the NHS. We hear examples of local systems that are making things work, but the NHS has a long history of failing to roll out best practice. The “Growing old together” report, which was published today by a commission set up by the NHS Confederation, gives examples of good practice across the NHS and social care in which integrated practice is not only delivering better care for individuals, but saving money. The only depressing aspect of that is that one has to ask why it is not happening everywhere. Rather than endlessly focusing on the negatives in the NHS, let us focus more on the positives and on facilitating their roll-out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and other colleagues who have spoken. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate.

I broadly support the call for some cross-party engagement to try to secure the future for the national health service, although I will come on to clarify that in my speech. The right hon. Gentleman may encounter some difficulties in seeking cross-party support for financing the NHS, not least because of some of the contributions so far. There are some profound challenges to financing health and social care, primarily because of the challenges that we, and all western societies, face with an ageing population. I remember the Intergenerational Foundation launch here in Parliament a few years ago. Only the former Member for Dulwich and I turned up. At the time, the subject was not much discussed, but I note that it is now increasingly being discussed. We are beginning to do the maths and realise that we cannot afford the current settlement for financing health and social care and that we will have to discuss it at some length. The problem is that one ends up talking about broadly different political philosophies and approaches. Some people, I suspect more on the Conservative Benches, will want to emphasise the need for personal responsibility; others, I suspect more on the Opposition Benches, will want to emphasise collectivisation and the like. That is why I suggest that discussing the financial settlement is possibly a road to nowhere.

I think there is scope, however, for discussion on the structural organisation of the health service: where our hospitals are located and what each individual hospital does. In a week when we have had yet another dreadful failure of the system with the 111 line and out-of-hours services, it is beholden on us to start to discuss what is offered in the out-of-hours arena: how the services are structured and where patients should go to seek the appropriate care for themselves or their children.

The context has been set out by other colleagues. We know that we have a problem of increasing demand, which is driven mainly by ageing, obesity and the welcome advances in surgical practice, technology and drugs. There is also a problem with the health-seeking behaviour of different generations. In my own clinical practice, I am seeing the passing of the stoic wartime generation. Their attitude towards health, and to symptoms of pain and suffering, is noticeably different from that of their children and that will bring increasing demand on healthcare services. If we consider that together with the large cohort who were born between 1945 and 1955, we have an equation that results in a significant deficit.

On the subject of deficits, since I have been here I have seen many faceless NHS bureaucrats come up with numbers relating to likely demand and shortfall. They are always wrong; the figures are usually underestimated. I said at the time that the £20 billion challenge in the previous Parliament was an underestimate of likely demand and here we are talking about £30 billion. What is next: £40 billion? I am glad that a shadow Minister for mental health has been appointed and that people are waking up to the importance of mental health because demands for mental health services in particular will increase the £30 billion figure.

On hospital structure, essentially we have 19th and 20th century buildings trying to deliver 21st century care. Medical and management staff are trying to do their best within this infrastructure, but to be blunt it is not possible to deliver the very best care in all hospitals and in all locations.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Is it not also, to some extent, a failure to engage with the public so that they understand how much 21st century medicine has changed? People who have a heart attack are not going to their local casualty department. They are being taken to a heart unit where they will have an angio and an angioplasty. People do not understand that the big boxy paramedic ambulance has everything that an old A&E used to have.

[Dr Lee]

The hon. Lady is right. Tomorrow I will be working as a doctor. I am very proud to be working as a doctor. I have been very public and open about it throughout my time here and I will continue to practise medicine for the foreseeable future. I encourage her to face down her internal critics, as well as those rather ill-informed external critics in the Scottish Daily Mail. I actually stood for election calling for the closure of my local hospital. I did not want my constituents going to an ill-equipped hospital, or thinking that it provided care that it did not. I have sought to educate my local electorate about the need for a 24-hour angio suite and for a 24-hour stroke unit.

We have made some progress on reconfiguration, particularly on stroke care. In London and in Greater Manchester, stroke services have been consolidated. That is why people are now surviving and survival rates for strokes are improving. Patients are taken to appropriate units and appropriately cared for. The appropriate intervention can be applied within the appropriate time. Sadly, that is not possible across the country. It is available only in areas where difficult decisions about reconfiguration have been taken. On oncology, there is a widespread belief that cancer outcomes are all to do with late diagnosis in primary care. Forgive me, but that is not necessarily the whole story. It is the quality of cancer care when patients reach the hospital—any delay in receiving radiotherapy and so on—that is having a profound impact on cancer outcomes. If we consolidated oncology services into fewer sites, we would get better clinical outcomes.

On out-of-hours care, when I turned up here I said that I would scrap out-of-hours care as it is currently constituted. Most people looked at me and thought, “Are you slightly nuts?” The answer is no. Having done many, many, many sessions in the primary care out-of-hours arena, I realised that there was the potential to delay the care of the acutely unwell in a way that could have an adverse impact and, in extremis, lead to someone’s death. I suspect, without knowing the details, that the case we heard about in the urgent question on Tuesday was such an example. I do not believe it is clinically possible to properly assess a sick child via a telephone. We can go some way towards doing it with an adult, because—guess what?—an adult can express themselves more accurately. With a child, we have to see them and touch them, and, in particular, we have to see the mother’s response towards the child, to assess how acutely unwell they are.

The problem, with all best intentions, is that with a telephone service these types of incidents are always going to happen. It was no different with NHS Direct; the medical profession used to get very frustrated with that, and 111 is the same. The symptoms of sepsis can be the symptoms of many things, so if we tighten the protocols we end up flooding the service with more and more people worried that their child has sepsis when, actually, it is not that common.

I would revisit the whole out-of-hours settlement. We could get away with having fewer doctors during antisocial hours primarily looking after the housebound and those who are terminally ill. The list of patients who could be visited by said doctor would be compiled by GP practices in that region. Patients would not get a visit unless the GP practice has said they are entitled to a visit because of a diagnosis of being either terminally ill or housebound. In future, I would put the resources into urgent care centres. For now, I would put one in each casualty to sift through. I would make sure it was a doctor. Forgive me, but doctors are taught to triage and to diagnose. No other healthcare professionals are taught in the same way. The best thing to do is to put one’s most experienced and qualified person at the front end, because then proper triage can take place.

[Dr Lee]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention because it allows me to elaborate. A couple of years ago, I had a meeting with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—all the polls were saying that the Opposition would win the election, so I thought I would have a meeting with him in advance. I said, “Look, Andy, you’re going to have a problem. We’ve got all these hospitals. We know some of them are not fit for purpose. We know we’ve probably got too many because of how healthcare has changed. Some 80% of care delivered in the NHS is for chronic conditions. Why don’t you have a cross-party commission so that all the parties can share the political pain of deciding which hospitals should be retained as acute hospitals, delivering the 24-hour stroke and angiography suites, the surgical interventions and the like, and then have more community hospitals, with urgent care centres attached”—the hub-and-spoke model. At the time, he looked at me and said, “Well, maybe”, and made no commitment.

My point was that it was extremely difficult for colleagues in marginal seats to come out and say what I said in my constituency, which was that the current local hospital settlement was not in the best interests of my constituents. It is very hard to do that in a marginal seat, be it Labour, Conservative or whatever, so, with a cross-party commission, we could all share the pain.

All the royal colleges, particularly the paediatricians and obstetricians, know that staffing in some district general hospitals is not ideal. It is extremely difficult to provide the level of care we know we can deliver. How do we get to that point? A couple of years ago, I thought that having all the parties and independent experts in a room would be one way of going from approximately 200 to 100 such hospitals in England and Wales. That is the sort of scale change I am talking about. I hope that that answers the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias).

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

In my constituency, we have hospitals that have grown organically and are not far apart, but we have also seen an increase in the number of modern community hospitals—what people would have called cottage hospitals. The hon. Gentleman says that many of our patients require the management of chronic diseases. We need to take that closer to the public. It is the highly specialised things that should be centralised. The public would accept that, provided they do not get the sense of their hospital disappearing and provided they are aware that other services are coming closer to them.

[Dr Lee]

Again, I agree with the hon. Lady—we are making a habit of this. I held a series of public meetings at which people were initially against my position, but when they understood that I was trying to provide more services closer to home, but that this might mean their having to travel a bit further for acute care, they accepted it and became broadly supportive.

I am under no illusions about the difficulty of all this, but if there is one goal we should all seek in the NHS, it is better clinical outcomes. At the moment, clinical outcomes are not as good as they should be. The much-trumpeted Commonwealth Fund report made that clear. Part of the problem—perhaps a significant part—is where the care is currently being delivered. The junior doctors strikes, which have just been paused; the consultant contracts; the nursing contracts to come—all these would be made easier with a structure in place that is more easily staffed. It would be easier to avoid husband-and-wife doctor teams being split if we had bigger hospitals with bigger staff pools to provide the cover.

We need to concentrate first on the structure of healthcare, and social care—I am conscious I have not spoken about social care, but of course it should be integrated; it is so obvious. But let us concentrate on the structure of healthcare first, as part of a cross-party approach, and then perhaps we can have a debate about finance. I suggest to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, however, that finance might be a harder nut to crack than the hospitals, on which I think there is a broad consensus that we are all in it for the same outcomes: people recovering from their illnesses; people being treated appropriately when they have operations; and ultimately everybody, irrespective of means, leading long, health lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clegg]

I stand corrected. Anyway, it was not £250 million.

There may be perfectly explicable teething problems. The announcement was made in the spring of last year, and it will have been necessary for all the mental health trusts to shift gear. However, I hope that the Minister—or, if not him, the commission—will ensure that not only future mental health reforms but previous commitments are delivered and funded in full. The £250 million that has not been delivered over the last year needs to be made up for between now and the end of this Parliament.

My second point concerns the importance of prevention —in all areas of health, obviously, but perhaps especially in mental health. The need for better prevention measures was one of the key findings of the mental health taskforce’s public engagement exercise, yet there has been little if any mention of it in recent Government announcements. Mind, the mental health campaign and policy group, has established that local authorities spend just 1% of their public health budgets on the prevention of mental ill health. That is £40 million out of a total budget of £3.3 billion. Yet we all know—even if we are not clinical experts, we know as parents, and as human beings—that intervening early to improve child and adolescent mental health avoids so much illness, so much heartache, and, to be candid, so much cost to society thereafter. Half of those with lifetime mental health problems first experience symptoms by the age of 14, and 75% of children and young people who have a mental health problem do not get access to the treatment they need.

Waiting times are still far too long. Average waiting times for CAMHS is two months—and as yet there are no waiting time standards in children, adolescent and mental health services. I think we all know, and I certainly accept it, that as we try to revolutionise the approach to mental health, the waiting time standards that have already been announced need to be spread and extrapolated to other parts of the service. Members have talked about the need to reconcile and bring together social care and healthcare, and if we want to put the NHS on a financially sustainable footing, which is the purpose of the cross-party commission, we also need to understand that the lack of prevention and of early intervention on mental health problems is one of the biggest drivers for subsequent inflated costs on the NHS budget. It is therefore essential that the commission looks at this as well.

Thirdly—and arguably most importantly, and also perhaps most technocratically complex—is the issue about the formula or mechanism by which mental health is funded. The problem is that for as long as anyone can remember mental health trusts have been funded according to block grants, through a lump sum of money given to them by some varying formula, while other NHS trusts—acute trusts—are paid on a per patient, per outcome, per recovery basis. That of course is deeply unfair, because it means that any time any Secretary of State for Health, Chancellor or NHS boss needs to make savings, the easiest thing to do is quietly shave a little money off that block grant, as no one really notices it —it does not stick out like a sore thumb like other financial cuts do—and that is precisely what has been happening. That is one reason why—even in recent years, however much new and welcome emphasis there has been on the priority mental health should have in the NHS—the basic funding formula or mechanism constantly discriminates against mental health trusts.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting a tariff system for mental health, rather than a block grant, but it has been obvious from evidence in the Health Committee that the tariff can also work against having more community care. I met a paediatrician who did outreach work and, having reduced admissions by 40%, the hospital pulled it because it was getting less money. So be careful what you wish for.

[Mr Clegg]

The issue here is about moving from a block or lump of money to an outcome-based formula. One can then decide from an infinite number of ways how to administer the outcome-based funding formula, but the principle that mental health trusts are rewarded and financed for the outcomes they produce, rather than having some random, and often arbitrary and unjust, lump of money, is the fundamental point.

What is happening at the moment is that mental health budgets are, whether we like it or not, at risk of being raided to pay for the unsustainable deficits in acute health. In 2014-15 London’s health commissioners spent 12% of health expenditure on mental health, and in 2015-16 that fell to 11%. In other words, there was a transfer of money from mental health to acute trusts. That is completely the wrong direction of travel.

In 2012, to address this problem, the then coalition Government announced that we would pilot a new approach to mental health funding via what were called care clusters. They work in the following way: adults receiving care are assigned to one of 21 mental health clusters based on their needs, and services are then tailored on the basis of the needs of the people in each cluster and the effectiveness of the interventions on offer. Each cluster is then given a local price, and commissioners work out payments to the mental health trust based on how many patients fall into each cluster.

It is fearfully complex yet there is evidence that transferring the funding of mental health trusts from a block grant system to this care-cluster, outcome-based system has already yielded results. Recent research by the Independent Mental Health Services Alliance has found that mental health trusts operating under block contracts had more delayed discharges and more emergency readmissions than trusts operating without a block contract. Geraldine Strathdee, national clinical director for mental health, has agreed. She says that block grants

“do not facilitate access to timely evidence based care such as those set out in the new mental health access standards”,

and Monitor itself has been very critical indeed of block contracts:

“Despite the introduction of the care clusters, most local agreements still rely on simple block contracts. We believe that block payments…do not work in the interests of commissioners, providers and, most importantly, patients.”

Frustratingly, notwithstanding the decision in principle to shift the whole system to an outcome-based, care-cluster system and away from the punitive effect of the block contracts, 35 out of 62 NHS trusts are still providing mental health services using those block contracts.

Forgive the technocratic detour, but the devil really is in the detail, particularly if we want to close the gap between the much more aggressive aspirational rhetoric that finally has occupied the public and the political debate around mental health and the pressing need to get on and push the system in a radically different direction, not only because it is the right thing to do to end the outrageous discrimination—and it is discrimination, although it might not have been felt or expressed like that—that has existed against patients with mental health issues who have suffered in silence, alone and untreated for generations, but also because if we do not do that and do not make some of these fundamental changes the spiralling costs then placed on to the shoulders of the NHS will merely continue. This is a vital element in meeting the cross-party commission’s mandate to arrive at a new Beveridge-style, cross-party consensus on how to place the NHS on a long-term and sustainable footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, last year Staffordshire County Council raised its council tax by 1.9% but ring-fenced that part for social care, so it was ahead of the game. I believe that it is looking at doing the same this year, possibly taking advantage of the Government’s welcome proposal.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

My concern about the 2% precept is that wealthy areas will obviously get a lot more money than poor areas, and that will increase health inequalities. Would the hon. Gentleman consider, for example, combining tax and national insurance? National insurance has become an anomaly in that people pay it even when they earn very little and stop paying it when they retire, even if they are very wealthy, so should something more radical be looked at?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I do propose something radical, but in completely the opposite direction, because I believe that national insurance is an incredibly good thing. I always listen to the hon. Lady with great respect, but let me argue the case for national insurance, and she may disagree with me by way of intervention or otherwise.

We have allowed national insurance to become less relevant, with the exception of the various eligibilities I mentioned. As a result, it has come to be viewed by Her Majesty’s Treasury as just another form of raising funds. There was a proposal for a consultation on merging income tax and national insurance. I would vehemently oppose that, because my perception is that our constituents still, understandably, see national insurance as something different from income tax in being their contribution to the NHS, pensions, and welfare. Indeed, about £60 billion a year of the national insurance money that is raised, although this is a bit of a fiscal fiction, still goes towards the NHS. That is far less than we spend on the NHS, but it is still there.

The notion that, as I contend, our constituents see national insurance differently from income tax was particularly evident when Gordon Brown raised national insurance in order to put additional money into the NHS. He rightly viewed that as the best way of raising additional money for the NHS because it was more acceptable than putting a couple of pence on income tax. The best way—I think the only way, but a commission would need to be very broad-minded in its views—to ensure that we can finance the NHS and social care properly in the long term is through progressive, income-based national insurance with a wider base, as Kate Barker said, whereby by it does not stop when people retire and does not stop at the upper national insurance limit, as it does at the moment at only 1% over it. Broadening the base of national insurance should make it possible to keep the percentage rate reasonable for all while paying for the services needed.

I welcome this motion and the proposal for cross-party work, whether through a commission or whatever, but I would plead that it be fairly focused. It should not cover ground on the details of healthcare that has been well covered elsewhere—probably better than we could cover it—but it should look at integration and, most important of all, future finance for the next 20 or 30 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I, too, attended the debate on 2 June last year, and I remember expressing my shock at the violence that was taking place between the Dispatch Boxes. I considered leaving the Chamber, because it did not seem to be a very useful debate and I did not see the point of taking part in it, but then I thought “No, let us get in and tackle this”, and I did make a comment. I said that, regardless of the differences in the way in which politicians would “do” the NHS, the public absolutely believed in it. We have had a fantastic debate today, because people have expressed different views and different outlooks, but have done so calmly.

As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the challenges of increasing demand caused by age and multi-morbidity are found not just north and south of the border, but throughout the developed world. We also face the challenge of not having enough doctors, in both primary and secondary care. That, too, applies throughout the nations of the United Kingdom.

There are some challenges that we do not face in Scotland. We have not experienced the fragmentation that resulted from the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Indeed, we got rid of hospital trusts back in 2004. We have gone, therefore, to geographical boards—we just have health boards—so there is no barrier between primary and secondary care, which people used to pitch across. Since April of last year our joint integration boards have become active. They ran in a theoretical way for about a year, but the vast majority of them went live last year and the last one will go live in April this year. That is putting the pot of money into a joint space where health and social care work together, break down the barriers and realise there is no benefit in sticking a person in a bed and then looking to see who should pay for it. What purse the money is in has often been the biggest problem.

We cannot develop integration if what we are actually developing is fragmentation and competition. That is why we have not gone down the route of outsourcing to private providers. It wastes a lot money and effort, and people are competing instead of co-operating.

We obviously have different systems in Scotland. We have free personal care, the level of which has been increased to allow us to keep at home people with more complicated conditions. That is important. Since June of last year we have been going through a national conversation. Whether we have a commission, a committee or whatever, it is important that the public and the staff are involved, as well as the people who have written all the reports—Marmot, Wanless, Barker, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust. There must be a way of bringing these together and picking out the good bits to get a shape. Our piece of work is looking towards 2030; that is what we are working on at the moment.

We did a piece of work that started in 2011-12 called “2020 Vision”. It was very like “Five Year Forward View” and addressed where we wanted to be and what shape we wanted. That identified that the No. 1 thing was integrating health and social care.

Talking about the money for this and where it comes from is always going to be political. At the moment national insurance is bizarre; it starts when people earn £7,000 when we would not tax them, and it stops when people retire, although they might be incredibly wealthy. I do not think people see it as national health insurance, which is how it started. Where the money comes from and what it is put towards is a political decision.

To get some kind of shared view of where NHS England and indeed the NHS in all the nations want to be in 2030 could be a useful piece of work. I totally agree with the hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about kicking this into the long grass. I certainly do not think it needs to stop any piece of work going forward. To me, this provides a place where that can come. One of the features in Scotland in developing quality measures is bringing groups of people together for an annual conference; I am a great believer in getting people into a room—maybe not always a room like this one; maybe a more co-operative room—so that people can say “This is what we found difficult. This is how we fixed it. This is where we are stuck. I see you solved that.”

One of the projects that Nicola Sturgeon has taken forward is called “once for Scotland”. It is not eternally going through local projects and experiments that never get shared with anybody, and everyone reinvents the wheel. That is a huge waste of energy.

Obviously the Government have committed to the £10 billion and that has been welcomed, but more than £2 billion of that is already gone in the deficits. That increase is focused purely on NHS England, whereas normally funding is described in all the Department of Health responsibilities. The other responsibilities are facing a cut that is described as approximately £3 billion. The King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation identify the increase as in fact about £4.5 billion—so not exactly the headline figure.

The “Five Year Forward View” has been mentioned, and that asks for £8 billion but it also identified £22 billion that had to be found. That is fairly eye-watering. Let us think about two of the things that were identified within that. One was a change in how people worked.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is talking a lot of sense, as she always does. The “Five Year Forward View” set out three scenarios, but it did not ask for £8 billion; that is just the narrative that has developed. The efficiency assumptions on which the £8 billion—or £10 billion, or whatever we want to call it—is based are unimaginable. They are at least 2% to 3% throughout the period between now and 2020, and everyone knows that that is not going to be delivered.

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Even without recognising that no one has ever achieved those levels of efficiency savings, we need to acknowledge that a big chunk of this is about prevention. More than £5 billion of the £22 billion has been identified as relating to people not going into hospital and not getting sick, yet public health expenditure has been cut by £200 million in-year, with another £600 million to go. That amounts to a 3.9% cut. Lots of people will think that that just means less smoking cessation and less preventive work around alcohol, but public health should be much bigger than that.

I understand that there used to be a Cabinet Committee on public health in this place. Public health should be feeding into all the decisions that are made here. We also need to ensure that our directors of public health are strategically involved in local government, because the shape of our town centres will determine whether we have car-based or active transport, how we design our schools and whether we flog off our playing fields. All those things will interact with health.

It has been said that secondary care always gets the bigger bite of the cherry. We talk about fixing the roof while the sun is shining, but in fact, when the window has just come in or the door has just come off its hinges, that is what we fix first. That is very similar to secondary care, which is actually the national illness service. It responds to people who are already ill. We are developing more complex and expensive treatments that allow us to keep people alive, and we need to recognise that. People talk about the catastrophe of ageing, but I would like Members to focus on what the alternative is. People used to say, “Age does not come alone, and it is terrible.” In the field I worked in, however, not everyone gets old. Age is something that we should value, because wisdom and a sense of community come with it.

However, we need to be ready to develop the services around older people, and that means not always just patching things up at the end. We need more intermediate care to allow step-up and step-down beds, and we are working on that in Scotland. In particular, we need to focus on primary care, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said. That is the real generalism. The GP is the person who is able to make a diagnosis because they have known the patient linearly over many years. However, GPs are on their knees and that is a UK-wide problem. They are under huge pressure because of the demand and the complexity. Within that, of course, we must talk about the lack of mental health services. They have been ignored for a long time, but that is beginning to change. In Scotland, we have a waiting time target for child and adolescent mental health services. Unfortunately, it is proving very challenging to meet that target, but we have doubled the number of staff in those services and we hope eventually to see improvements.

We need to be looking at these issues more broadly. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and I—I am not very good at learning constituencies that have two names; I find one name a challenge with 650 people here—are members of the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies. We have been taking evidence on the health impacts of increasing child poverty, of which we are going to see even more. We need to recognise that every decision we make feeds into whether our citizens are healthier, physically and mentally, or less healthy. That is about welfare. It is particularly about housing, which has one of the biggest impacts on health. The hon. Member for Stafford mentioned those impacts in our debate yesterday on supported care. If we lose supported care in the community, we are never going to get people out of hospital. I want to make the plea, as I did in my maiden speech, that we in this place should put health and wellbeing—meaning mental health—across all our policies and measure our decisions against those factors. Far too many decisions are made in a broken up, narrow way without looking at the ramifications for everything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I said that we have met the challenge that was put before us, which was to support what NHS England said it needed. We have done that through the financial commitment we have made. We looked very hard in the spending review to see what social care would need, and the Chancellor came up with the £2 billion social care precept, plus the £1.5 billion from other resources, so that is £3.5 billion extra by the end of 2020. We have put in place the financing that we believe will allow the delivery of health and social care over the next few years. But—and it is a big but, which I will refer to later—it is not just about the resources; it is also about how they are spent. Most colleagues have spoken about variability and how best practice is not always available elsewhere. We have to ensure that best practice comes in, and that is not just about resources; it is also about how things are done.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Is it not the case that the idea of seven-day-a-week, 8 am to 8 pm GP practice was not included in the NHS England estimates, and therefore the cost of that has been added on top? Will the Minister commit to taking the evidence from the pilot studies on whether that is a good use of money?

[Alistair Burt]

I will. We had this discussion in the Health Committee the other week. I will of course look very hard at the evidence, whether it comes from Greater Manchester and shows that somebody is working effectively and appointments are being filled, or from places where that is not currently the case. We have to wait and see in that regard.

The spending review showed our continued commitment to joining up health and care by confirming an ongoing commitment to the better care fund. Again, the integration process is extremely important. In terms of the general argument about what should be done, a clear commitment was made, based on an independent assessment of what was required. That required a Government who were prepared to make difficult decisions, and a strong economy, and we assumed that responsibility.

Let me deal with some of the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members during this conversation—for it is, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, a conversation, and a really good one. If more debates about health had the flavour of this afternoon’s discussion, the public might be happier. She said that her preferred method for dealing with things, as with most of us, is bringing people into the same room and having a conversation—but perhaps not this room. However, there are other rooms in this place in which to do that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee, does so regularly. This place can provide opportunities for the sorts of discussions that would be at the heart of any cross-party consideration of what we want to do. We should not neglect the fact that we can do that, and we have had a good conversation today.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) in that I am fundamentally shy of the idea that we can just put this on to others and with one bound we are free. I understand the sentiment that we somehow need to get, if not the politics, then the heat of the politics, out of it in order to allow for the conversation that we need to have. However, at the end of the day, that still requires a process. Like her, I believe that the process is that we discuss it, come to conclusions within our own party about what we can do, and offer it in a sensible way to the electorate. I entirely agree with those who say that there are times when we have all been guilty of the most ridiculous adverts. At the end of the last general election campaign, I was in a marginal constituency and had a piece of paper in my hand that was our last-minute leaflet. I knocked on doors and said, “Look, we have a choice—I can either hand you this leaflet, which is complete nonsense, or you can give me 20 seconds to explain why you should vote for David Cameron tomorrow and keep a Conservative Government.” They laughed and said, “Go on, then”, and I had my 20 seconds. We all know that we are sometimes guilty of producing material that in the cold light of day we would not wish to, and in relation to health we need to be extra-careful about that.

As the debate went on, I was concerned about whether the commission that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk and his colleagues is proposing can bear the weight of the many different things that we would like it to cover. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes wanted it to report rapidly, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) intervened to say that it had to be for the longer term, so which is it to be? My hon. Friend also spoke about the problem of variation in the system, but that is not to do with resources. No commission could be so directive as to make sure that best practice is delivered everywhere. We have to do that in another way.

The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) in, as always, a very thoughtful and sensible speech, recognised the political problem in agreeing on this, and she was right to do so. It is very difficult for her, or any other Labour Member, to talk about the introduction of private medicine. If I did not stand here and say, with no deviation, that the Conservative party and the Government believe in a tax-funded health system free at the point of delivery, the roof would fall in. Therefore, there are constraints on what we can say politically, and we have to be thoughtful about how we deal with those responsibilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) added more weight to the commission by talking about structure, and how we deal with these reviews of where hospital premises might be located. Again, there is this problem of politics. When approached by patients or doctors with a vested interest in keeping a physical bit of bricks and mortar and in saving “our” hospital, it would be a brave one of us who said, “Do you know what? That may not be the best thing.” That difficult problem was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). No commission can get us over that sort of problem.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) invited me to Northern Ireland to see some integration at work, and I would be keen to visit. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire and a number of colleagues made the point about public health. Prevention is about not just the public health budget—significant resources are still going into public health—but what we are trying to do with the shift from secondary to primary care to ensure that people are seen earlier.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talked about ensuring that we keep people well longer. She said that instead of seeing the national health service as an organisation that looks after just the ill, we should consider what it can do before that, which is very important.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) spoke principally about mental health. As a Health Minister, I know full well what the coalition Government as a whole did in relation to mental health. They picked up a trajectory that had been disappointingly low, but we are now well on track. I wish gently to correct something that has been creeping into the narrative, which is that it was all going fine until six months ago, but it has slightly come off the rails now. It has not. It was not all sorted during the coalition, and I reject the charge that it is now all about rhetoric and not delivery. We are delivering, and making sure that CCGs spend the increased money that they get on mental health, and we are tracking it for the first time.

That £1.25 billion for children and young people’s mental health, which was a very significant delivery by both the right hon. Gentleman and the coalition, has been increased to £1.4 billion, and it will all be spent in that area by 2020. We are dealing with the issue of mental health tariffs as well, and we want to have waiting and access times for children and young people’s mental health services.

I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to see, at least in this part of my portfolio, that what I seek to do is to build on what the right hon. Member for North Norfolk did in my role. I would rather that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam did not talk in that manner and think that it has all come to a halt, because it has not. We are having to repair one or two things, such as perinatal mental health, in which we have put significant resources. The conversation has been advanced enormously in exactly the right way by consensual discussion, and we will certainly carry that on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I think that engagement with all involved is essential. When I am away from Westminster, engaging with patients, the public and staff is fundamental to the visits that I make to the services for which I have responsibility.

There is nothing to stop any of the work that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk is suggesting from starting. It is essential that everybody is fully involved. I do not think that the Government or the Opposition will make any of their decisions on the NHS or its expenditure by excluding anyone.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), in a turbo-charged contribution, also spoke of the importance of getting integration right. She reminded us that Dick Crossman started it all off. I am sure that we have all had election manifestos that have spoken of an integrated transport system and integrating health and social care. Now we just have to make sure it happens. She made the point that no amount of talk or number of recommendations relieves someone of the burden of doing it. At the end of the day, it is doing it that counts. That is the role of the Government, while being appropriately challenged by all others.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) spoke of the importance of the workforce, particularly the workforce in social care, who have a very difficult time of it. They have great skills and need to be on a career pathway where they can acquire more. They also need to be valued. Again, my hon. Friend believed that the current mechanisms were better than others for dealing with these difficult problems.

To conclude, I will give my sense of the debate. I found it slightly hard to distinguish what the foundations of the debate were—whether it was about the quantum of funding or how the funding was gathered into the health budget in the first place. The commission is expected to cover a breadth of issues, but I am not certain that it can bear the weight. Decisions need to be made, no matter how the information comes forward.

We do not need a commission to deliver the process or to take the heat out of the debate. We have to be careful about how we speak about these subjects. By and large, what happens upstairs gives the public a good sense of how we deal with witnesses who come in from outside, members of the public and each other. We can do much more of that without the need for a commission. We must remember to handle things carefully.

I am not sure that structural change could be handled through a commission. That is very much a local decision. This is not all about funding; it is about how the funding is used. We have to ensure that we do not get into the trap of measuring everything by what we put in, rather than by output. One of the most telling points was when the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said that in the Commonwealth Fund analysis that gave the NHS such a good rating, the one thing it dropped down on was outcomes—treating people and whether people stayed alive. To most people, that is probably the most important outcome of all. We have to make sure that, for all the other good things that we are doing, such as the work the Secretary of State is doing on transparency and all the efforts we are making to give people more information, we recognise the importance of that.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Just on the Commonwealth Fund analysis, the standard that the UK did badly on was actually healthy life expectancy. That is not the same as an outcome in hospital. We may have successful operations, but we have underlying deprivation and ill health.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I just say to the Minister that I did give him the nod. I have been very generous. When we say that he has “up to 15 minutes”, he is meant to take 15 minutes. As he can see from the clock, he has taken a lot longer.

William Mead: 111 Helpline

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is so much in this report, but we must not let some very important recommendation slip under the carpet, and that is one of them. We have a commitment to a paperless NHS, which involves the proper sharing of electronic medical records across the system. We have also instructed clinical commissioning groups to integrate the commissioning of out-of-hours care with the commissioning of their 111 services to ensure that those are joined up. It is a big IT project, and we are making progress. Two thirds of A&E departments can now access GP medical records, but she is absolutely right to say that it is a priority.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Like others, I add my condolences to the family. It is hard to imagine anything worse for a family to face. Like many deaths in the NHS, it is always sad to look back and see that it was a catalogue of missed opportunities and errors. One thing I should like to pick up on is the fact that young children are very hard to assess. It is quite hard for a doctor to assess them when they are actually seeing them; they can be running round one minute and then keeling over half an hour later. It is particularly hard to pick up clues about their health over the phone. When NHS Direct services were started throughout the UK, they were based in local out-of-hours GP centres, which meant that the nurse could just pass the phone and say, “Can you come and chat, because I am not sure.” We had rules in our local one that if a young child was involved, they got a visit from our mobile service. Instead of such cases being put through call centres, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree in this review to have some dissemination back to a local system, so that these cases can be accelerated easily to a clinician.

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the broad thrust of the hon. Lady’s remarks. Of course she speaks with the authority of an experienced clinician herself. In this case, the tragedy was that there was actually a doctor who spoke to the Mead family on the night before William died, and he did not spot the symptoms. It is not simply a question of access to a doctor, but ensuring that doctors have the training necessary. However, as she says, dealing with cases such as this can be very difficult. The doctor’s view on that occasion was that, because the child was sleeping peacefully, it was fine to leave him until morning when, tragically, it was too late. Other doctors would say that that is a mistake that could easily have been made by anyone, which is why the report is right to say that it is about not individual blame, but a better understanding of the risks of sepsis. She is right in what she says. As we are trying to join up the services that we offer to the public, it is a good principle to have one number that we dial when we need advice on a condition that is not life-threatening or a matter for a routine appointment with a GP, and 111 is an easy number to remember. However, we need to ensure that there is faster access to clinicians when that would count, and that those clinicians can see people’s medical records so that they can properly assess the situation.

Space Policy

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the scientific, cultural and technological opportunities arising from exploration of outer space and the significant contribution the space industry makes to the UK economy; further notes the increased public interest in space exploration resulting from Major Tim Peake’s mission to the International Space Station (ISS); welcomes the global co-operation that has led to the development of the ISS over the last forty years; takes note of the shortlist of airports and aerodromes that could host a UK spaceport published by the UK Government in March 2015; and calls on the Government to bring forward further advice and support for organisations considering developing such facilities so that they might be operational by the Government’s target date of 2018.

If hon. Members read the motion, they will see that it covers the incredible breadth and depth of the space industry and its amazing potential. I hope that that will be covered during the debate by Members from different parts of the United Kingdom. Some people are likely to stoop to using some fairly poor puns. At this point I would like to register the fact that I accept no responsibility for that. I lay the blame at the feet of the Prime Minister, who has stooped to using some pretty shocking puns at Question Time recently, something for which he needs to be penitent.

Some people who follow the media will be aware that our former First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), has used as a travelling pseudonym the name of that famous captain of the USS Enterprise, but for a debate as important as this, I felt we should contact the real McCoy. I therefore have a message to the House of Commons from William Shatner:

“Space is one of the last known frontiers, mostly untouched by mankind and his politics. In opening a debate on this subject my hope is you take the tenets of Star Trek’s prime directive to universally and peacefully share in the exploration of it. I wish you all a wonderful debate. My best, Bill”.

As some people will have seen, we have also had a message on Twitter from George Takei—otherwise known as Mr Sulu—wishing us luck as we venture to the stars.

This is not a debate about fictional astronauts. We tried to get the debate on this day to honour a real astronaut, Major Tim Peake, who is currently in the international space station. We sought it today because tomorrow he will be making a spacewalk. Contrary to some slightly sloppy journalism, he is not actually the first British astronaut. That honour fell to Dr Helen Sharman from Yorkshire a quarter of a century ago, in 1991. I find it incredibly appropriate that, prior to that, she was a research chemist for Mars. [Laughter.] It’ll get worse.

However, Major Tim Peake is our first astronaut through an increased engagement with the European Space Agency. While Helen Sharman was on the Mir station, he is in the international space station, and tomorrow he will certainly be taking part in the very first British spacewalk. It will start, hopefully, at 11.30 GMT tomorrow morning. I would encourage all schools, children and youngsters of all ages to log on to principia.org or NASA TV on the internet, where it will be shown, as it truly is an historic moment. He has been tasked with changing regulators on the solar panels. As they are high-voltage regulators, the walk has to be carried out entirely on the dark side.

I am a member of the parliamentary space committee. We had the great opportunity to have a private tour of the “Cosmonauts” exhibition in the Science Museum, which I would recommend to anyone. The museum spent four years negotiating with Russia to bring incredible artefacts to this country—the space capsule of Tereshkova, uniforms of Gagarin and all sorts of pieces of hardware that even people in Russia did not know existed. What struck me as we went round the museum was the fact that, during points of incredible friction between Russia and the US and across the world, back channels always remained open. Co-operation always continued on the international space station. We have seen that in these few years of setting up the exhibition, during which we have had the Ukrainian crisis, Crimea and friction over Syria. If we can work so well together in space, it would be great if we could work a little bit better here on earth.

Any Members who were in the Chamber when I made my maiden speech will remember that I referred to Prestwick in my constituency as being on the shortlist for consideration as a space port. I remember that whenever I talked to anyone about that during the election, they would always just laugh, because in this country we think that space is for other people—the big boys: north America, Russia and maybe even China, but not us. That is something we have to change. We need to believe in what we can do, and I think Major Tim Peake’s mission will achieve that. We see the interest of school children and the Science Museum was packed on the day of the launch, and we had Members in this place watching it live on screen. We hope it will lead to an interest in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and an absolute belief in the space industry here in the United Kingdom.

The space industry is new, but the UK has a proud aviation history, which includes Rolls-Royce and supersonic flight. We need to take the next step and grasp that opportunity. The industry has changed over the past five years, and I applaud the decisions taken in 2010 that led to the formation of the UK Space Agency. It is now an industry with a turnover of £11.5 billion. It employs 35,000 people, three quarters of them in graduate jobs, and a third of its production is exports, but the vision of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is that it should grow to become a £40 billion industry. For that, we really need to take action.

If it was not a political decision, there should not really be any great doubt that the choice should be Prestwick. We already have almost everything that is needed. We have a runway that is touching 3 km. We are in a coastal position, to allow start-off over the sea. We have the northern air traffic control centre in our campus, which allows the planning of what will be some pretty clever management of airspace, and obviously we have relatively empty airspace. We are close to Glasgow University and Strathclyde technology catapults and we have, uniquely, an aerospace cluster on the airport campus. It contains BAE Systems, Spirit AeroSystems and many others, all of whom are interested in the idea of a space port.

Up the road from us is Clyde Space, which makes small CubeSats that are only a litre in size. Early communication satellites were weighed in tonnes and were the size of a double-decker bus, but the UK, through Surrey Satellite Technology, has led since the ’80s in producing satellites that are about the size of a fridge. That is a step change. It has been shown that if the cost of getting a satellite into space gets down to the tens of thousands, everyone is going to want one. We will have to look at regulating that, otherwise space will be full of junk, but it enables all sorts of possibilities. However, we do not have a domestic launch site. That is why the aim is to have a UK space port by 2018.

As well as all the physical attributes of Prestwick, 20 years of Met Office data show that, despite preconceptions, it has the clearest weather, compared with Newquay, which people would presume is the closest contender. Low cloud is suffered by Newquay 31% of the time and only 11% of the time at Prestwick. Less than 5 km visibility is suffered by Newquay 15% of the time and only 4% of the time at Prestwick. I live in Troon, which is next door, and I can vouch for the fact that we have a weird little weather system, locally known as the Prestwick hole. People can fly into it, drive into it or walk into it. They can be surrounded by thick cloud, but they will look up and see a large hole of pure blue sky. That is what has made Prestwick the clear weather airport for the United Kingdom for decades.

I call on the Minister to look not just at having one space port. I think this is an industry that will mushroom. We need to accept that all sorts of sectors will develop that we have not even thought about. It will diversify. This is a real industry. It is not about saying, “Beam me up, Scotty,” or fretting about the dilithium crystals that we see on the telly; it is a multi-billion pound industry. I call on the Minister to be imaginative, to be brave and to be boldly going where no Minister has gone before. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Nearly done.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)]

More!

[Dr Whitford]

Oh, I am sure the Minister will have about two hours more.

Prestwick was Scotland’s first ever passenger airport and it was founded by Group Captain David McIntyre, the first man to fly over Everest. That is the kind of imagination and drive we need. I call on the Minister to please be imaginative and to support the industry across the entire UK so that it can live long and prosper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

That is a fair point. It is important to recognise the huge achievement of all the astronauts of various heritages and from various parts of the United Kingdom. There is certainly no intention to play trumps.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Did not that gentleman change his nationality? He had dual nationality, and did not fly with the Union flag on his suit, as Helen Sharman did.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend was absolutely correct to pay tribute to Helen Sharman. I remember that as well. I was particularly young at the time, but I will leave Members to work that out for themselves, if they want to look up my biography.

The shuttle programme was a huge inspiration to many people. It is a very sad loss, but if its end several years ago was a low, we are now going through something of a renaissance. There have certainly been a number of highs recently, as I have mentioned. The fact that 15,000 people attended events to watch the launch of the Principia mission just before Christmas, including those of us in the Jubilee Room and later in Portcullis House, demonstrates how the international space station continues to serve as an inspiration.

Many of us who watched the amazing opening ceremony of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games will remember that, just when we thought it could not get any more exhilarating, a live broadcast was beamed down from the ISS. I was not at the ceremony, but with thousands of other people on Glasgow Green on that great day of celebration. There was a real coming together, with exactly the kind of inspiration that the hon. Member for Bracknell spoke about. It was humanity at its finest: people coming together from all over the world to take part in sporting endeavour and being supported by their fellow human beings hundreds of miles above the ground. It was particularly appropriate because, as we have heard and will continue to hear, Glasgow—and indeed Scotland—plays a significant role in the modern space industry and in space science.

In December 2015, my old university, Strathclyde, hosted the annual Canada-UK colloquium on the future of the space industry, which was attended by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs. Delegates visited two companies in the city, Clyde Space and Spire, which specialise in cube satellites technology and data. In the margins of that event, the First Minister strongly backed the calls that we have heard and will no doubt continue to hear for a spaceport to be located in Scotland. She pledged that the Scottish Government will do whatever they can to ensure that one of the bids is successful.

In my constituency, the University of Glasgow has one of the leading centres for space science and research in the UK, or indeed in the world. Space Glasgow brings together more than 20 academics from a range of disciplines to co-ordinate research, especially under the key themes of exploring and understanding space, mission analysis, risk and technology.

One recent achievement has been the university’s involvement in the launch of the European Space Agency’s LISA—laser interferometer space antenna—Pathfinder spacecraft. The launch in December marked the end of a decade of work for a team from the university’s institute for gravitational research, which helped to develop the craft’s sensitive optical bench. The bench is a hugely complex and important technology. It has a laser interferometer. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) congratulates me on my pronunciation. It was developed, built and tested by the university’s team, and is capable of detecting changes in distance between test masses of as small as 10 picometres. It is an outstanding scientific achievement in its own right, and the images and knowledge that the Pathfinder will produce will no doubt help to inspire generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely.

Ensuring that the space sector has a place in Northern Ireland and is aware of what we have to offer will go some way towards addressing the brain drain issue of too many of our young people emigrating. I would like to hear from the Minister how the space policy can better connect with Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has a proud history of air flight, although it is not linked directly to space policy. Henry George Ferguson, who was better known as Harry, a brother Orangeman, was a Northern Ireland engineer and inventor who was noted for his role in the development of the agricultural tractor. He was also the first Ulsterman and Irishman to build and fly his own aeroplane. The first ever airport in Northern Ireland was in my constituency of Strangford, in Newtownards, and was built in about 1910.

Northern Ireland has a fantastic aerospace industry with Magellan and Bombardier, which has been established for many years. I believe that there is a role for those aircraft companies to play in space policy and development. They can and should be part of it.

The space sector is fundamental to the future UK economy. I welcome the Government’s civil space strategy and the goal that the space sector will contribute £40 billion a year to the UK economy by 2030.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

The point that I was trying to make in my opening speech was that the bid talks about a UK spaceport, whereas I think there will be different sectors. One sector that will come in the not-too-distant future is hyperbolic sub-orbital flight. Once we get past the Virgin Galactic model of a plane and a wee rocket, we will have the combination of jet and rocket engines, such as SABRE—the synergistic air-breathing rocket engine—which will go from standstill to orbit and back down. We will be able to fly to Japan in a short period of time. Different sites around the UK may therefore follow totally different routes. That should be enabled, not blocked.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that significant and important intervention. She shows the vision that all of us in this House should have. There are no barriers to what we can do. Some of the things that are in “Star Trek” are not impossible, so let us look forward to those developments. I look forward to being able to travel from A to Z—from Belfast City to Heathrow—in a matter of seconds. If that is ever possible, we will be able to get here and back a couple of times and to do business at home and here, all in the same hour. Is that possible? I do not know, but I hope it will happen.

Thinking back on how space has been discovered, I am always mindful of the first time man stepped on the moon. It was one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. For me, and I think for many others, that showed us the immensity and size of the universe that God created, and it focused our minds on God’s power and the fact that it was not for us as children, and that he is in total control of the universe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Absolutely. It is really important that science fiction writers continue to write, because they often provide ideas and encouragement for creativity and development.

Satellites are also important in other areas. I have mentioned television; I could also mention communications, and weather and climate monitoring. It was satellites up in space that first photographed the issues with the polar ice cap, and we have now been able to compare the photographs that were taken 30 years ago with those that are being taken now, which are showing the real impacts on the ice cap.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

The United Kingdom obviously has the potential to be part of a world network of satellites, in that the geostationaries are likely to be launched from America, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, whereas Australia and the northern hemisphere will be launching satellites into polar and sun-synchronous orbits. Obviously, another blatant punt for Prestwick is that we are further north.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Different areas can no doubt provide different services.

Possibly the most famous satellite is the Hubble space telescope. I have been asked why we should not simply view the stars from a dark area of the Earth, such as Chile or Hawaii. The answer is that the Earth’s atmosphere is a fluid. Let us try to imagine viewing images through water in a swimming pool. That gives us an idea of what it is like trying to view space from the surface of the Earth. Getting out of that fluid and putting the Hubble space telescope up there have enabled us to get images that would never have been considered possible in the past.

The third really important, and really exciting, aspect of space exploration is the possibility of living in different environments. It was thought for a long time that two things were required for life to exist: an oxygen-rich atmosphere and liquid water. However, we have now seen evidence, even on Earth, of life existing in extreme areas—for example, at very deep pressures in the ocean and in very cold parts of the world. That gives us real hope that there might be life in other places, even within our own solar system. It also gives us the opportunity to think of living further afield beyond the constraints of the surface of the Earth.

We have mentioned astronauts already. I have counted seven British-born astronauts, although I might have got that number wrong. Two of them are space tourists, and a number of them moved to the United States in order to pursue their careers, but what was really exciting about Helen Sharman and Major Tim Peake is that they were both living here in the UK. That gives our youngsters great hope.

We must not forget, however, that space travel is extremely dangerous, particularly during take-off and landing. The Challenger disaster in 1986, in which seven astronauts were killed as a result of faulty seals in the solid rocket boosters, is an example of that danger. In describing the dangers of re-entering the atmosphere, I shall refer again to the fluid I mentioned earlier. Let us imagine skimming stones on the surface of a lake. That is what it is like trying to get a spaceship back into the Earth’s atmosphere. It has to enter at a particular angle and at a particular speed. If it gets those things wrong, it will bounce off the atmosphere like a skimming stone. If the angle of entry is too steep, it will burn up very quickly. It is a very precise operation. We also remember the Columbia disaster in 2003.

When I was at the Science Museum just before Christmas with all those children, they cheered and shouted as the rocket was launched. I did not cheer and shout at that point, however, and the people in ground control at the European Space Agency also waited until the rocket had got into orbit proper before the celebrations really started. That is the point at which it is considered to have become a lot safer. We must pay tribute to the bravery of these astronauts. Theirs is a dangerous job, albeit a glamorous one.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned, Tim Peake is to do his spacewalk tomorrow. He will be outside the space station for more than six hours, which is no small task. It is highly technical and highly dangerous, and we wish him all the very best.

I have been pleased to hear so many Members talk about the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths and of getting girls involved in those STEM subjects However, to do that, we need teachers in place, and a serious policy of recruitment and retention of teachers. We need to think about how we will attract people from other areas into teaching.

A few years ago, I was lucky enough to meet a NASA astronaut, who was talking to a group of my school children. He was asked by one, “What do I need to study in order to become an astronaut?” His answer was great. He said, “It doesn’t matter. You must follow what you are passionate about—be that material science, engineering, physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. Follow what you are passionate about and then other things will follow.” That is an important message for our young people.

Finally, I ask the Minister to commit to the space industry not just financially, but in terms of advertising and ambition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, we must have the ambition and we must say to our young people, “This is for you and it is available to everybody.” On the back of Tim Peake’s mission, which has been so inspirational to watch, we really need to get the message out there that space is open for business. I now call on the Minister to make it so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

We called this debate to celebrate Major Tim Peake’s spacewalk tomorrow, and obviously the incredible work he is doing to engage children and young people. Many Members have spoken about the need to engage girls, in particular. I do not think that there is really a clash between us on whether Tim Peake or Helen Sharman is the first British astronaut; they are people we should be promoting together. There is no friction between them. Indeed, she has given him her copy of Yuri Gagarin’s book to take there as a souvenir. Having spent 33 years in surgery, I know what it is like to be in a man’s world. I remember being told formally during my third year at medical school that women could not do surgery. We have come a long way.

We have heard from Members from all UK nations bidding for their site, which I think is absolutely right. We have also heard about the incredible breadth of the industry, and there are many things that we have not even thought about today. I am grateful to hear from the Minister that the structure and licensing will be looked at, because I think that is really important. I look forward to the day when our hubs are called not aerospace, but aero-space—aero, hyphen, space—and I expect that we will have multiple clusters and hubs. A time may even come when we need more than one space port; perhaps one for tourism and suborbital parabolic flights to Japan or north America, and one for getting satellites up—satellites that will end up being the size of a packed lunch.

I am grateful to all Members who have taken part in what has been a fascinating debate. We want to encourage our young people simply to aim for the stars.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the scientific, cultural and technological opportunities arising from exploration of outer space and the significant contribution the space industry makes to the UK economy; further notes the increased public interest in space exploration resulting from Major Tim Peake’s mission to the International Space Station (ISS); welcomes the global co-operation that has led to the development of the ISS over the last forty years; takes note of the shortlist of airports and aerodromes that could host a UK spaceport published by the UK Government in March 2015; and calls on the Government to bring forward further advice and support for organisations considering developing such facilities so that they might be operational by the Government’s target date of 2018.

Hand Hygiene: NHS

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Alan, in a debate that sounds simple but is important. The education centre in my hospital in Ayrshire is named after Sir Alexander Fleming, because the man who discovered penicillin was an Ayrshire lad. It may be that people have got complacent and think that the age of infections is done with. In earlier generations, children did wash their hands, but then people got too casual.

In Scotland, we began to be much more fixated on hand-washing in 2001, after some of the evidence about the impact of hospital-associated infections came out. In the early 2000s, our uniforms changed: white coats were banned, tops needed short sleeves and eventually we moved to no ties or jackets. We also began to have more audit in the system. We went through a painful experience between 2006 and 2007: a massive clostridium difficile outbreak in the Vale of Leven hospital in which 163 patients were affected and 34 died. Nicola Sturgeon, our First Minister, was the Cabinet Secretary for Health at the time, and she instantly set up a hospital-acquired infection taskforce when the problem became obvious. The whole approach accelerated.

We have several different organisations that are part of driving hand-washing, but it is about the culture. It is not a question of someone facing the threat of losing their job or being sanctioned; it is about getting people to see hand-washing as part of the rhythm of every contact. There is observation, as has been mentioned, and there are also ward champions. The observation is hidden, so no one knows it is happening. I must say, to my chagrin, that in every single audit of staff, doctors were the worst. That fact was published, to shame doctors by showing that we were the slowest to adopt the right practice. We also observe visitors, and there is alcohol gel as people come into wards. My office was on the ward, and it was easy to see physios, nurses, doctors and visitors interacting with the alcohol gel.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) for setting up the APPG for patient safety, which I am part of, and the Handz campaign. In Scotland, we have the “Happy Birthday” hand-washing campaign, which has been running for some time. We already have that campaign in schools, but it is important to raise the issue.

To verify hand-washing, we have the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate, which turns up without anyone knowing it is coming. Its inspectors are down under the beds and poking around in the mattresses on the trolleys. They are observing staff and, believe me, if there is a dusty corner, they will find it. They also look at surfaces—is there a cracked surface or a rough bit of floor that could be difficult to clean? It is about not only hands but the cleanliness of the entire ward.

My hospital was lucky in that it never outsourced cleaning. We never had companies coming and going. We kept our ward maids. It was their patch, in which they took pride. The supervisor comes along, like your mother-in-law, wearing a white glove, to check exactly what everything looks like. They can be seen under the bed, in among the frame, cleaning every pick of it while chatting to the patient. Those are simple things, but we need to do them, because we are moving into what could be a post-antibiotic era. To think that we could lose something that we started using in 1942 after 80 years is absolutely terrifying, so we need to bring that culture back.

In the NHS, every single trust publishes its infection figures every quarter. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) mentioned all infections, and as a surgeon I have to admit that infections happen for all sorts of reasons. The reason why C. diff and MRSA are so important is that their root cause is the poor use—prolonged use—of antibiotics, which causes C. diff, and poor hospital hand hygiene, which causes MRSA.

Trusts’ infection rates are published every month and pinned up on the wards, so that visitors can see them. We also put out the reports of the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate. I have shown a critical report on one of our hospitals to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood, to show how thorough and challenging the inspection is; there are no holds barred. That is what has to be done. There are also infections out in the community. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned cytomegalovirus, which, again, can simply be reduced by hand-washing.

We in this place have to realise our part in all of this. We shake hands with hundreds of people. We go and eat our lunch, and I do not see people forming a queue at the ladies or gents to wash their hands. We should all have a bottle of alcohol gel in our bags. I am on the House’s medical panel, and I have put on the agenda that we should have exactly the same dispensers of alcohol gel used in hospitals outside our canteens. We need to set examples, whether that is by visiting local schools or simply by showing all the people we interact with.

The NHS has a responsibility for hand hygiene. We need to change the culture in the NHS, so that if a member of staff is near a patient and touching not only them but their environment, the member of staff washes their hands or uses alcohol gel before their next contact. We in this place also have a role in getting the message out into society.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for bringing this important matter to the notice of the House, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their speeches and contributions.

Hand-washing is an interesting thing, is it not? For the majority of human history, from Pontius Pilate to Lady Macbeth, it was associated with a bad act. Hand-washing was what someone did after they had done something wrong. It was only through the transformation in clinical knowledge in the 19th century that the understanding of hand-washing and its criticality in reducing infection rates became commonplace, but it was a long fight. It is worth remembering that Ignaz Semmelweis, the man who made people understand that washing their hands in obstetric and maternity settings reduced the risk of infection, was so criticised by his colleagues that it drove him to insanity, and eventually to death in an asylum. This was a hard-won victory, and I utterly endorse the wise comments made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford): perhaps it is because it has become such a commonplace part of our modern understanding of hygiene that we have forgotten its central importance in reducing infection.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) came to the Department of Health a few months ago and sat in on one of the Secretary of State’s Monday morning care meetings to discuss her Handz campaign and the fact that she wanted to set up an all-party parliamentary group on hand hygiene. I know that her personal testimony brought acuity to our understanding of why this is important. It is all too easy to see MRSA, E. coli and C. diff rates plotted on a chart and to forget that, actually, the result of those infections can lead to the tragic and completely unnecessary loss of life. However, even if it does not lead to that, it can often mean a very extended stay in hospital, with serious injury sometimes incurred as a result of infection.

The overall story of infection caused by poor hand-washing has been good over the last decade. Rates of MRSA, MSSA, C. diff and E. coli have all come down— very considerably in some circumstances—but, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), rightly noted, we have plateaued in almost all of those, and worryingly so. In fact, in the case of MRSA, there has been a worrying, albeit slight, increase in rates in hospitals. That has now been consistent enough to constitute a trend.

We have to be clear that, from the Government’s perspective, we are still not entirely sure in each case why the reductions have not continued. To some extent, it is clear that an increasing role is played by community infection and community onset, or expression, of infection. We do not yet have a full understanding of the relationship between community settings and hospitals, and the chief medical officer is working very hard to try and understand it. Therefore, this is a pressing moment, not least because of the problems of antimicrobial resistance, which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned, and which is why we have to be particularly vigilant.

Overall, the one thing that will guarantee that we do not make more progress is if I make a central directive from Richmond House and then ensure compliance through a massive, bureaucratic reporting mechanism. The only point on which I differed from anyone in their observations was when the shadow Minister, in his generally very wise comments, talked about the relationship to staff retention. That was because, although general infection control should be part of how teams work, it should be part of the personal, professional responsibility of a clinician, no matter where they work—whether in the community or between hospitals as a bank nurse or clinician—to take infection control very seriously.

How do we improve matters? How do we make sure that, as in so much of the NHS—to copy Bevan’s words, which I do not tire of using—we are “universalising the best” and lifting poor performers, of which there are several, up to the best standards in the country, some of which can be found with our neighbours in Scotland?

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

I have not worked in a hospital in England, but the poster campaign that the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) referred to involved massive posters that were in the lifts and targeted at visitors, porters, nurses and doctors. The five points of contact were above every sink and in every room. If we are trying to change a culture, I wonder whether the first thing is actually just to try to get the campaign out there among staff and visitors.

[Ben Gummer]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, and I agree that we have to re-educate the public that we have not won the battle and that we have to re-engage. I will take her comments to the chief medical officer and talk to her about what more we can do to re-engage the public in the debate on hospital-acquired infections.

NHS Bursary

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I am a new Back-Bench MP so I was not around then, but I know that Martin Lewis was on a Committee at some point afterwards to determine relationships, but I will take advice on that.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

May I just clarify that figure of paying £5 a month, which is £60 a year? At £60 a year, that loan would never ever come close to being repaid over 30 years—over a whole working life.

[Paul Scully]

That is on a band 5 salary. I would expect nurses to increase that. The point of the student loans system is that it is a finite time period of 30 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I will just complete my comments regarding student loans in general, but then I will come directly to the hon. Lady’s point because it is one of the issues particular to nurses that I mentioned a little while ago. Student loans in general do not go on credit files, so the only way that a loan, credit card or mortgage company will know if someone has a student loan is if they ask for it. Obviously, for bigger loans, they tend to ask. Student debt is not accounted for by mortgage lenders in terms of the total amount owed, although they will look at the affordability of the loan and at an applicant’s outgoings. When tuition fees and student loans were first introduced, the Council of Mortgage Lenders confirmed that lenders would not use that or add that total debt to the amount owed when they considered mortgages.

[Dr Whitford]

Is it not the case that the Financial Conduct Authority has announced that the size of someone’s student loan will affect their ability to get a mortgage and will be taken into account?

[Paul Scully]

Well, I think a lot of it is down to affordability. [Interruption.] No, there is a big difference. Someone might have an amount of £50,000 or something like that, for example, but it is about the repayment. Whether someone is paying £5 or £50 a month, that is the figure that lenders will look at to work out whether they can afford to repay the loan. As I said right at the beginning, that top line figure is not the crucial one. The crucial one is actually the amount that someone will pay out of their salary each and every month.

Looking at the current case and at positions that are particular to nurses, we have talked about the fact some people going into the nursing profession may already have a degree and are doing a second one. There are mature students. The average age of those applying to study is about 28 or 29. I believe I have covered my take on people’s concerns about the diversity of the workforce changing.

Under the current rules, people cannot usually access the student loans system if they have already done a degree to the same level. The view of the Council of Deans of Health is that the Government should make those courses exempt from that rule. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about whether that is the case. If it is, in the new system, people would be able to access student loans if they wanted to—that would be an equivalent or lower qualification exemption. As repayment amounts are based on salary and not on the total loan, the amount repaid would be the same whether someone has one or two loans. Effectively, that makes it a graduate contribution, not a traditional loan. The system is slightly different from a graduate tax, which was discussed a few years ago, because it is finite—it finishes after 30 years, and a graduate tax, as we might have had under other suggestions, would have carried on going past a graduate’s retirement. As I said to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the introduction of tuition fees and loans for other degree courses has not led to a drop in applications and has not affected the diversity of applicants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Evans, and it is an honour to take part in such an important debate.

There is no question but that England requires more nurses. The ratio is 5.8 nurses per 1,000 patients, the lowest in the UK, and yet NHS England cannot fill nursing posts. It is bringing nurses in from overseas and using agency nurses, so that number needs to be expanded. The approach taken is the idea of simply removing the cap, but the challenge is how enough placements will be found. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, how will that be funded when Health Education England is facing a massive cut? Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of funding the placements; they require the contribution of nurses and other staff on the wards who are already really busy. It is not something that can be dreamt up in an office in Westminster and happen by magic.

There is also the issue of whether, at the end of training, that unlimited number of nurses will all find jobs in our NHS. It is likely that they will not. We will therefore have wasted not just their money in the tuition fees they will pay for the cost of their training, but money invested by the Government in their training. That is short-sighted, because the Government will lose control of workforce planning, which is key, and with only 5.8 nurses per 1,000 patients, clearly that has not worked too well up to now.

There is an argument for re-expanding nurse places, which were at their height in 2004 when we had nearly 25,000 places and reached a low in 2012-13 of 17,500. At the moment, they have just crept above 20,000, but that does not even bring us back to the figures seen in 2001-02. We clearly need more places, but the idea that nursing students should take on the burden is ridiculous.

Hon. Members in the Chamber will know of my interest: I have been a doctor for 33 and a half years. If there had not been free tuition—and grants back in 1977—I could not possibly have become a doctor, let alone gone on to study surgery and work as a breast surgeon for all of those years. England is already losing out on students who have talent but not the opportunity to follow any degree, and medical degrees in particular. Now we are talking about nurses and allied health professionals—as Members have said, allied health professionals are included in that important group.

Some Members have asked about an impact assessment. We have not heard about one and it is clear that there been absolutely no consultation. The Royal College of Nursing reported that there was no consultation with it: I should have thought that that is where one would start.

We need to look at the bursary. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) explained, it is not exactly generous: £1,000 is guaranteed. Above that, it is means-tested and it reaches the dizzy heights of £3,091 only for people in London. That is not a lot of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned, the bursary in Scotland is £6,578, which is all non-means-tested and non-repayable, because we consider it absolutely crucial to invest in the people we need to run our health service.

The biggest kick for students will be having to pay tuition fees, which are currently £9,000 a year: we do not know what they will reach in the future. That instant debt of 27 grand will certainly put people off. Even if I had been told at the age of 18 that I did not have to pay back the loan until afterwards, the idea that someone with no support in the world, as was the case at the time, would be signing on the dotted line to take on what was almost a small mortgage would be hard. People are not going to do that.

The idea that people will not be put off is naive. It will put off the 50% of nursing students who are postgraduates and mature students, and it will put off people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. It will reduce diversity. We have talked about the need for Parliament to reflect our population, and it is crucial too that nurses and doctors reflect the population that they serve. That will change, because becoming a nurse will be an expensive business.

We need to think about why we moved from the old days of the enrolled nurse and the registered nurse: those were the nurses I used to work with. I have to say that, from the number of stripes on their hat, I knew exactly what experience they had and exactly what they could do. Many of us thought, “Why are we suddenly doing degrees?” but when we look at where our NHS is now, we see the whole point of that, because nurses are now leaders in the NHS and the vision of the future NHS workforce is of nurses leading independent teams, being out in primary care, triaging patients and diagnosing and treating on their own. The idea of the nurse as handmaiden has thankfully long been laid to rest.

The same applies to allied health professionals. About 30% of the patients who come to primary care have a musculoskeletal problem and part of the vision of improving primary care is to allow patients access to a physiotherapist—an expert on their problem—if they have a sore back, hip or knee.

Podiatrists provide care to an increasing number of diabetics. People are probably not aware that the life expectancy of someone with a severe diabetic ulcer is poor, ranking above only lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. That is a real threat to patients, so we need podiatrists who can check feet and treat ulcers at an early point. There are only 3,000 podiatrists for the whole of England, yet student numbers have been reduced from 361 to 326.

We are reducing the numbers of the very people we envisage needing in future—it is like the right hand and left hand are not talking to each other and do not know what the other is doing. As we say in Scotland, two grey cells and they are in a huff; they are not talking to each other. That needs to change. We need to look at the NHS as a whole and the people we expect to provide care in future.

As I mentioned, we have a reasonable bursary in Scotland. I would not say that our students are living the high life on £6,500 a year but, like our other students, they do not pay tuition fees. The hon. Member for Lewes cited a figure for graduates earning £100,000 more, but we must remember that that is over an entire working lifetime, so that is £2,500 a year, which is not a huge amount, and that is reduced by their debt. If students are graduating with £50,000 or £60,000 of debt from their study and living costs and so on, those extra earnings shrink to almost nothing. We will gradually reach the point at which people who might have considered being nursery nurses or primary school teachers or contributing to society in another way that is not well remunerated will not feel able to take on that debt.

We need to look at what we will need in future. We require physios and radiographers, who they will provide the wraparound care for our ageing population, out in the community, leading their teams and working on their own. I call on the Minister to follow the Scottish example and invest in people. That is the key.

Sadly, what we have seen recently—certainly in my short time in the House—is the debt created by the bankers towards the end of the previous decade became sovereign debt, which is now becoming individual debt. All the time in the main Chamber we hear how we cannot leave public debt to future generations, but we are putting it on future generations as individuals. We need to recognise that. People struggle to get a house, they struggle to get education and they struggle to get a job. We need to change that. In this instance, our return is a coherent, diverse, broad NHS staff made up of people who are committed to what they do. I call on the Minister to answer the many challenges raised today and to say how he will invest in the future workforce that will look after the people of England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

The numbers do relate to full-time students. I concede that, in the case of part-time students, there have been, for a longer period than the time since 2011, problems in maintaining a rise consistent with that across the population. The Chancellor has accepted that fact, which is why he devoted specific attention and funds in the spending review to supporting part-time mature students. However, in this case we are talking about a nursing degree that is, for the vast majority, a full-time one. For the majority of nurses—I believe the figures are not quite those given by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, although I do not have them to hand—their degree is a normal undergraduate degree, taken before maturity. For all those people, I want the same benefits that have been provided across the rest of the university sector. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central was a Member in the previous Parliament, as was the hon. Member for Lewisham East, and they made exactly the same claims then as they do now about a reduction in opportunity, a reduction in number of applicants and a reduction in all the areas where we want universities to perform. I am afraid they have been proved wrong and the Government have been proved right, and that is why it is important that we extend those benefits to nursing.

I will address in terms the process by which we have come to this decision, about which the hon. Member for Ilford North raised some detailed questions, and our intention for the wider reform of training routes into nursing. It is important that hon. Members should see the changes that we are making to university training as part of a wider reform enabling us to increase both numbers and the quality of courses, as well as improving the student experience for nurses entering nurse registration by whatever route. The policy has been worked through in considerable detail in the Department of Health. There has been consultation with leading nursing professionals. The Department of Health is advised by a number of chief nurses. All were consulted and involved in working up policy in this area, which is entirely how it should be.

We have been very open about the fact that we want a full and detailed consultation about how the proposals should be implemented. We want that to be thorough and to involve everyone, whether they oppose or are in favour of the changes, so that we get the detail right. While I will maintain that the overall policy direction is correct for the reasons I have given, it is important to make sure we implement the detail correctly. If we do not get it right, it could have a perverse impact. If we do, this could be an important moment for the nursing profession, because we will be able to do something that previous Governments have not been able to do. Even in the wildest spending realms of the imaginations of some colleagues of the hon. Member for Lewisham East, it would not be possible to commit the resources to expand the training places that the route we have decided on will make possible.

The Opposition must answer a central point when they set out their opposition to the proposal. The fact is that we want to give more training places to people who want to become nurses. Last year, there were 57,000 applicants for 20,000 places. We want to expand the number of places so that people get the chance to become a nurse, but within the current spending envelope—even if we were to increase it more significantly than we propose to over the next five years, and certainly far more significantly than the Opposition propose—it is not possible to do that.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the Minister not accept, on the basis of invest to save, that if agency nurses are costing the NHS £2 billion, such an investment in future nursing would, in actual fact, save money in the long term?

[Ben Gummer]

I agree with the hon. Lady that one key thing we have to do is ensure we have a permanent workforce and do not depend across the service on agency and locum nurses and doctors. However, part of that is ensuring we have the workforce numbers trained to be able to fill places. In the past, we have failed to predict workforce numbers with any accuracy, which is something all Governments are guilty of.

No matter what happened to training places, the changes required across the service because of the impact of Mid Staffs on our understanding of safe staffing ratios has meant an increase in the requirement for nurses. At the moment, in the very short term, that requirement has to be plugged by agency and locum nurses, but we want to replace them with a full-time permanent staff that is sustainable. I hope the Opposition are able to bring an alternative view—I would be interested to hear it—but if we are to increase the number of training places, we have, simply put, to be able to afford to do so. The surest way of expanding places is to repeat exactly what we did for all other university degrees back in 2011, which has seen a massive expansion in training places.

The other point that the hon. Member for Lewisham East and her colleagues must address if they wish to oppose this reform is how they would afford not only the expansion in training places, but the maintenance support for nurses going through training. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield): the current bursary funding is not generous. It is certainly not sufficient for many, especially those with caring duties, to maintain themselves, but how can we find the increase while ensuring we expand places at the same time?

Through reforming bursaries, we are ensuring that we can increase the cash amount by 25%—something that, again, could not be funded out of the existing envelope, even though we are increasing NHS spending more than any other major party promised at the last election. We are therefore able to provide the support that people going through nurse training are rightly asking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

I will write to the hon. Lady with year-by-year figures, where available—pass rates change every year. The nursing training course is one of the most over-subscribed of all undergraduate courses. Compared with other undergraduate courses, whatever metric we use, it is a significantly over-subscribed course. We know that a significant number will not receive a place on a course, even though they have met the criteria.

[Dr Whitford]

If the cap is completely removed, the Government will lose any ability to plan a workforce for the future. If all 47,000 applicants are given a place, what will happen when they come out at the other end? There will not be the placements to train them, and there will certainly not be the jobs. Is this just a way of having a flood of cannon fodder nurses, so that their pay can be frozen?

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady mentioned in her speech, as did the hon. Member for Ilford North, the need by some trusts to recruit from abroad and to use locum and agency nurses. I hope she will understand therefore the internal logic of our argument: even at the moment, we are not able to fill places from the domestic supply of nursing graduates. It is precisely our wish to expand that supply. Planning the workforce will, in large part, be controlled through the placements that Health Education England buys from universities on behalf of the taxpayer and the NHS.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of clinical placements, on which we are now in deep discussions with Universities UK. The hon. Member for Ilford North raised that issue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. I urge them both to look at the example of the University of Central Lancashire, and its relationship with Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Bolton NHS Foundation Trust. They are delivering innovative and exciting ways of providing new placements outside the scope of the existing placement scheme, even without any Government support or change in the rules.

There is an appetite for delivering additional clinical placements, and we will see how that progresses in our discussions with Universities UK. All the while, it is important to point out that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has to register nurses at the end and ensure that the degrees are satisfactory. All of this will have to abide by the NMC’s recommendation that the placements are up to scratch, so we are constrained, quite rightly, in anything we might want to do by what it decides in that regard.

[Ben Gummer]

In the course of taking interventions, I am skipping around the points that hon. Members have raised, which I want to address. The hon. Lady is right that the University of Central Lancashire has worked up a really good course, which is partly about job security at the end of it. It is exactly the kind of scheme we are looking at to improve attrition rates, which were another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes raised. We have to do better to help nurses complete their courses, and again, that metric has improved across the rest of the university sector since 2012. I hope that in freeing up nurse training a little through our reforms, we will be able to provide better incentives for foundation trusts and NHS trusts to have an end-to-end training offer for student nurses—if not modelling the one that the University of Central Lancashire has brought in, then a variant on it.

There is a lot of exciting thinking out there in universities, foundation trusts and NHS trusts about how we can implement the reforms to make nurse training better, expand the number of places and solve their workforce problems. My job is to release that thinking. I cannot do it within the straitjacket of the existing system, but I can through the reforms I am able to make.

[Dr Whitford]

Is the pilot in Lancashire that has been described not an argument for better manpower and workforce planning, rather than for simply throwing things open to the winds, which is what is proposed?

[Ben Gummer]

I was merely making the point that there is a lot of exciting thinking out there, outside the workforce planning that we are doing. Through our reforms, I hope to be able to encourage more of that. I know that there is some very innovative thinking in my part of the country. People want to get on with it in the NHS and university sectors, but at the moment they cannot, because of the constraints on how nurses are trained and recruited.

I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who introduced the debate on the petition. He asked four specific questions. One was on specialist courses, and the shadow Minister repeated that point. Some specialist courses have suffered shortages for many years. For several years, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has been dealing with the wider attribution of training funds and university tuition funds across the sector, and it will take on responsibility for making sure that very small and specialist courses are properly funded and promoted. In liberating the universities sector a little, I hope that we will be able to excite interest in some of the more specialist courses, which have been suffering for several years, and better match foundation trusts’ workforce requirements with universities’ ability to deliver.

My hon. Friend asked whether foundation trusts will be able to pay back loans as an inducement. I do not know whether that will be possible for foundation trusts specifically, but they are free to offer pay premiums to aid their recruitment—they have been able to do so for many years. I imagine that will continue.

My hon. Friend asked about the number of placements and the financing of them. That will be determined by the consultation and in discussions with Universities UK. He also asked about the arrangement for placement expenses, and I have heard his point. I know it is a unique problem that is specific to student nurses—although to some extent, it also applies to student teachers—and again, we want to look at that in detail in the consultation to ensure that we get the implementation right. That is why it is not just a matter of pure detail; it is about how the policy works as implemented.

The hon. Member for Ilford North raised a number of points in addition to the ones he raised in his Adjournment debate. I apologise for not having answered all of them previously; I had a short time and he raised a huge number, with his usual eloquence. However, I hope I can answer some of his specific points on this occasion.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the problems of recruiting into community-based settings. There is a shortage in that specialty, which has traditionally suffered from problems in recruiting. I am well aware, just as he is, of the need to improve recruitment into community settings and primary care settings if we are to get the proper integration of primary and secondary care, and more importantly, of social care and the NHS. That is one of the key challenges facing us in the years ahead. Health Education England has a scheme under way called “Transforming nursing for community and primary care”, which it launched just over a year ago, precisely to incentivise nursing applicants into that specialty. Again, I hope that universities will respond positively, as they have in the case of other courses, so that they step up to the workforce demands placed on them as a result of the reforms that we are making.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the amount of debt to be written off was. The long-term loan subsidy—he will understand the phraseology—remains at 30%. That is the figure that the Treasury has set. As a consequence of that and because of, as he put it, reliable reports from newspapers, which he imputed to be fact, he asked whether there would be an increase in student fees above inflation. I can say to him that there are no plans at all to increase student tuition fees above inflation.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would be willing to meet those who disagree with my point of view and that of the Government on this matter. I would, of course, and I have done already. I would be delighted to meet anyone whom he wishes to bring to me, including the demonstrators he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman began his speech, however, by talking about a burden of debt. It is important for all of us here to remember that the loan is an attachment against earnings, which is time-limited and limited according to the ability to earn, so it is not like debt such as a mortgage. We made the same argument back in 2011 and 2012, and it is important that we use language correctly in this place. We saw an uptake in university courses after the 2012 reforms. Once prospective students understood how the financing worked, how they would pay back the tuition fees and that it was not a debt that would saddle them in the same way that a mortgage or hire purchase agreement might, as was suggested at the time, university applications increased significantly. We all have an interest in this place in making sure that the number of people going into nursing increases. It is important, therefore, that even if we disagree with the policy, we do not misrepresent it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. He is a Norfolk colleague and as Minister did a lot of work in this area. He raises an important point that as a society we need to think profoundly about how we integrate health and social care. As I say, the Government have made a £3.5 billion commitment from the new precept and the better care fund is a significant commitment, but he is right—we will have to go further. Through the devolution programme and the integration programme, we will have to develop more powers so that local health leaders and care council leaders can better integrate services to reduce unnecessary pressure.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

In Scotland, A&E performance is published weekly, but since June that in England has been published only every month and now after a six-week delay. Since that time, the performance in Scotland has risen and 96% of people were seen within four hours in Christmas week, which is a huge challenge, whereas the last data published for England were for October and show a figure below 90%. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State accept that to improve performance we need to return to more timeous and frequent analysis and publication?

[George Freeman]

I share the hon. Lady’s interest in data and in proper information. We need to be a little careful about Scottish figures. Over winter, England publishes three times more A&E performance measures than Scotland every week. We publish quality rankings on hospitals, care homes and GP surgeries, which Scotland does not. What we do not hear about in Scotland is A&E closures, A&E diverts, emergency admissions, general and acute beds—I could go on. It is dangerous to compare data that were not prepared on the same basis, but I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm, as does the Secretary of State, for information.

[Dr Whitford]

I am aware that the renewed strike call from junior doctors has actually been called in order to meet the new rules created by the Government’s own union laws and that negotiations are ongoing. To avoid an impact on hospital waiting times, what will the Secretary of State bring to the negotiating table to try to reassure junior doctors?

[George Freeman]

I am delighted to be able to announce—the hon. Lady might already have heard this—that the Secretary of State has appointed Sir David Dalton from Salford Royal to lead on that. I repeat the offer that the Secretary of State made this morning: we are very close to an agreement, so the right approach is not to strike, but to come to the table and reach it.