Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

4. What his policy is on making available all information about the results of clinical trials to patients, doctors and medicine approval bodies.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

The Government support transparency in publishing results of clinical trials, and they recognise that more can, and should, be done. In future, greater transparency and the disclosure of trial results will be achieved via the development of the European Union clinical trials register, which will make the summary results of trials conducted in the EU publicly available. Greater transparency can only serve to further public confidence in the safety of medicines, which is already robustly assured in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. By law, the outcomes of clinical trials undertaken by companies must be reported to that regulator, including negative results.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the Minister but some of these answers are simply too long. If they are drafted by officials, Ministers are responsible—[Interruption.] Order. I require no assistance at all from the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry). She should stick to her own duties, which I am sure she will discharge with great effect.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the Minister for his answer and for recognising that missing data from clinical trials distorts the evidence and prevents patients and their doctors from making informed decisions about treatment. Will the Minister meet a delegation of leading academics and doctors who remain concerned that not enough is being done to see how we can ensure that all historic and future data are released into the public domain?

[Norman Lamb]

My hon. Friend raises absolutely legitimate concerns, which have been raised by others, including Ben Goldacre. I am happy for my noble Friend Lord Howe or me to meet her and experts to discuss this important issue further.

Community Hospitals

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move.

That this House recognises and supports the contribution of community hospitals to the care of patients within the National Health Service; requests the Secretary of State for Health to commission a comprehensive database of community hospitals, their ownership and current roles; and believes that the assets of community hospitals should remain for the benefit of their community while allowing them greater freedom to explore different ownership models.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her new role. She will know that there are more than 300 community hospitals in England. I used to work at one of the very smallest at Moretonhampstead in the heart of Dartmoor, so I know just how important community hospitals are, especially to isolated rural communities. I may have lost one, but I fortunately gained four, and I am happy to represent Brixham, South Hams, Dartmouth and Totnes.

Community hospitals vary in size and function—some are urban, some are rural, for instance—but they share a common theme: they are deeply rooted in their communities and provide an extraordinary level of support with volunteering and charitable giving through leagues of friends. The reason for that support is clear: people value their personalised approach and want to be treated closer to home. Community hospitals score well on things such as dignity, respect and nutrition. We should be treasuring and enhancing their role because although small is beautiful, unfortunately it can make them a tempting target for cuts.

The need for efficiencies in the health service is nothing new. I remember reading in 2009—before the general election—about the Nicholson challenge. We have known for some time that we have to make £20 billion of efficiency savings over the next four years—that is 4% efficiency gains year on year—but there is a misunderstanding about what this means. It is not about doing less of the same; it is about spending what we spend more efficiently and looking at the needs of our population. Over the next 20 years, the number of over-85s in our country will double.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

In my constituency, Abingdon community hospital has played a fascinating role in supporting the wider NHS in Oxfordshire. It has assisted with the problem of bed blocking by supporting early and late-stage rehab and preventing patients from needing acute beds. I do not think that community hospitals should face cuts, given the role they can play in easing pressures on acute hospitals. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Dr Wollaston]

I agree absolutely. Their role in so-called step-down care and rehabilitation is vital, and I am glad to hear that it is happening well in Abingdon.

Seventy per cent. of the total spend on health and social care goes on people with long-term conditions. We should all understand that the burden of disease in England has completely changed—from tackling life-threatening emergencies to managing people with long-term, complex conditions.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. She mentioned the growing elderly population, and nowhere is that more of an issue than in north Yorkshire. Does she agree that the Government—and this is a good opportunity for me to congratulate our new Minister, whom I hope will respond positively—should not be obsessed only with home care, which has its place, and that there will always be a place for community hospitals in our health care structure?

[Dr Wollaston]

I wish to make the case for reinvigorating community hospitals as hubs for delivering the right care at the right time and in the right place. Of course, the right place, where possible, will always involve helping people to be independent in their own homes, but community hospitals have a vital role, through both step-up and step-down care, in helping to maintain that independence.

We should look at what community hospitals are capable of, because they are not just about in-patient beds: they provide a full range of diagnostics, minor injuries units, therapies—physiotherapy and occupational —and mental health care. In my constituency, people with cancer can access chemotherapy at Kingsbridge hospital, saving them a long roundtrip to Derriford hospital. Kingsbridge hospital—South Hams, I should say—supports a triangle centre helping people and their families living with cancer, while organisations such as Rowcroft hospice are looking to expand their care-at-home system through hubs in community hospitals and, at times, by utilising their beds and support. We can get so much more from community hospitals if we reinvigorate them.

We should not think of community hospitals as backwaters; they can be centres of great innovation. The nationally recognised Torbay pilot, which provides care based in the community, started at Brixham community hospital in my constituency and is now being considered for nationwide roll-out. That is a very good model.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She mentions the Torbay model, which is rightly a pilot and flagship for the integration of services, but does she envisage a situation in which not only are medical services integrated in one location but other emergency services can come together? The result could be enhanced training for people, such as firemen and policemen, who could qualify as paramedics and assistants to the medical services.

[Dr Wollaston]

Indeed I do, and there are many community hospitals that support first responders in the way my hon. Friend describes. That is an important role, and there is perhaps even an extended role in housing, where step-down housing can enable people to make the transition back to full independence. Indeed, there are many such roles.

What are the current barriers to providing the right care at the right time and in the right place? I would like the Minister to deal with five points. First, the biggest challenge we need to address is the tariff and tariff reform. She will know that most acute hospitals are paid through a system known as payment by results, which creates some perverse incentives, whereby acute hospitals want to hoover up as much activity as possible. Often, people are treated in an acute setting when they could be more appropriately cared for in a community hospital setting or at home. Can the Minister update the House on the progress we are making on reforming the tariff, by, say, working towards a “whole year of care” model or looking at other ways to remove the incentive in the system that means that people cannot be transferred into community hospitals or provided with the right care in the right place?

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I entirely agree with her important point about the tariff and acute hospitals. I hope she agrees that it is also important to signpost patients to the right place, which, because we are talking about a caring issue, is in many cases a community hospital.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Quite often patients are not aware of the full range of services available in their community hospitals. We can do far better in signposting them. It is also important that GPs understand and support those services and make referrals to the right place.

The second issue I would like the Minister to address is the community hospital estate. She will be aware that many community hospitals around the country are being pushed into ownership by NHS Property Services. However, there are examples around the country of community hospitals that are owned by their communities, for example, or by a social enterprise. If those hospitals are unable to have ownership of their premises, that can hold them back if they have ambitions to expand their roles in future. Obviously we want to reassure the public that these valuable community assets remain in public ownership, as it were, but we also want to ensure more flexibility in their ownership model. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister addressed that point.

Thirdly, there is an accountability issue. There are occasions where having multiple providers operating out of a community hospital can cause confusion. Situations can arise where, because everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible, and accountability can end up being shunted around the system. Does the Minister agree that it would make more sense to have a single body, or even individual, with overall responsibility for what happens to patients and the way in which care is organised in a community hospital?

Fourthly, I want to raise an important point that goes beyond community hospitals to the whole way in which we look at a primary care based system, namely the looming crisis in general practice numbers. For the first time we now have a vacancy rate for GPs of 12% in the south-west. On top of that, in about four or five years we will have a retirement bulge—I am afraid that I have not helped the situation—and we are also moving, quite rightly, from a three-year period for general practitioner training to a four-year period. All that coming together means that across the country, the south-west included, we will face a shortage of skilled practitioners both to deliver commissioning and to staff our community hospitals. We need their support. It would be a great shame if GPs who were enthusiastic about getting involved in commissioning and helping out in their community hospitals were unable to do so because of their clinical commitments. Can the Minister therefore update the House on how we are going to stop the problem, which has been going on for years, of too many medical students going into training in acute hospital specialties? We need more of them to go into general practice.

Finally, will the Minister support the Community Hospitals Association? It does a tremendous job. In 2008 it received a £20,000 grant to help set up a detailed database that documented not only where community hospitals are but what they do. At this time of change I hope she agrees that it is particularly important that we keep track of what they are doing. The CHA has also highlighted innovation and helped to spread best practice, so I hope that she will give it further support.

No debate about community hospitals would be complete without thanking the leagues of friends, which around the country have provided millions of pounds. They do not provide luxuries; we are talking about major building projects, equipment, funds for care, volunteers who come into the hospital—an extraordinary level of support. We could not manage without them in our community hospitals. I know that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to our leagues of friends.

This is a call to arms to people listening to the debate. If you value your community hospital, let your GPs know, let your commissioners know, let HealthWatch know, let your local health and wellbeing boards know. If we want community hospitals to be treasured, as we all do in the House, we need to make that very clear.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the Minister for her reply.

Who could forget the passionate cry from the heart from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and the invitation to take cake in Swanage hospital? How wonderful it was to hear an alternative vision for the future from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and to hear how we could see community hospitals as the heart of community care provision. I hope that the commissioners in south Dorset will see the light and see that that is a much better alternative.

Many Members have contributed to the debate and I am grateful to them all. We heard from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), particularly about the difficulties of rurality and transport. We heard likewise from the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). We want to tackle rural health inequalities and the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall clearly made the point that if we do not have transport, that contributes to health inequalities. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) about the need for leadership and how we can deliver the right care at the right time and in the right place.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) made a knowledgeable contribution about different ownership models in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), whose constituency neighbours mine, paid tribute to the marvellous stroke service that operates out of her community hospital. She also spoke knowledgeably about the problems with PFI in the NHS that have dogged so many hospitals and burdened the NHS with unnecessary debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke about the campaign to keep in-patient beds at Rowley and it is clearly disappointing that we will not be able to see more direct intervention on unnecessary closures in parts of the area.

It was good to hear the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), but Labour Members are not so much abstaining as absenting themselves from the debate, which is clearly disappointing. I assure him that I fully understand that there must be reassurance for the future that community hospitals will always stay for the benefit of their local communities and that it is good to hear the Minister reiterate that very important point. If we are going to see the contribution from leagues of friends continuing for the future, they must have absolute confidence that those valuable community assets will always stay for the benefit of local communities.

I thank all Members for their contributions and pay tribute to all the staff and leagues of friends of our wonderful community hospitals.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises and supports the contribution of community hospitals to the care of patients within the National Health Service; requests the Secretary of State for Health to commission a comprehensive database of community hospitals, their ownership and current roles; and believes that the assets of community hospitals should remain for the benefit of their community while allowing them greater freedom to explore different ownership models.

National Health Service

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) before I conclude.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I hope that in his conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman will address a point raised by the King’s Fund. It said that the greatest policy failure of the previous Administration was the failure to tackle health inequalities. He says that he wishes to appeal the whole of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but does he accept that shifting public health back to local authorities gives us one of the greatest opportunities to tackle health inequalities? Will he seriously put public health back where it was before and, by so doing, continue to fail to address health inequalities?

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Lady mentions the Act, and I seem to remember that she called the Bill a hand grenade thrown into the health service. She seems to have changed her tune since then. We made huge progress on tackling smoking and improving the public health of this country, progress of which we are very proud. We can always say that we could have done more, but I remember putting through measures on smoking towards the end of our time in government that were opposed by those on the Government Front Bench. I am not sure how she could justify that.

The budget cut combined with the distraction of reorganisation means that six out of 10 hospitals in England are now off target for their efficiency savings. That brings me back to where we started: this is the wrong time to reorganise the national health service. In conclusion, the House cannot reverse tonight the damage of the NHS reorganisation, but we are not powerless. There are things we can do to help the NHS at one of the most dangerous moments it has faced. Our constituents will expect us to hold Ministers to account for promises made on rationing and reconfigurations. They will want us to do the right thing by NHS staff facing pay cuts and redundancy. Our constituents have a right to expect that one of the central pledges in the coalition agreement—not to cut the NHS—will be honoured. That is the simple call of our motion this evening which, we hope, can unite all sides of the House. A vote tonight for the motion would be a positive vote for an NHS under siege and a message of appreciation for NHS staff facing uncertain times. I commend the motion to the House.

Care and Support

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she gives me the opportunity to say that my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions will publish a document shortly. That will enable her and other hon. Members to see the relationship between the two documents.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and in particular the recognition of the role of housing in helping people to live independently in their own homes. Will he elaborate further on how the £200 million extra may be spent by local councils? Does he support the recommendation of the Health Committee that we have a single commissioner for health, social care and housing?

Cosmetic Surgery

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Chairman of the Health Committee for this excellent report.

Let me touch on just four areas: putting patients first; the ethics of the industry; how we reduce the burden for the future because this is not the first time that we have had scares about breast implants; and the need for a register of all implants and an update on how that might progress.

Of course it is a tremendous relief that the expert group concluded in its final report that there is no evidence that PIP implants represent a materially greater risk to health than other types of silicone implant. However, the point is that PIP implants rupture much more frequently—six times more often—and when they do they cause severe local reactions in many cases. For that reason, many women will opt to have them removed. If their private clinic has gone out of business and the procedure is offered under the NHS, there is an issue about whether the NHS should then allow them to pay separately to have a private implant fitted.

The reality is that having an implant removed does not just result in a minor cosmetic difference to a woman’s appearance. There is a very significant difference in the appearance of the breast once an implant has been removed. For women who cannot afford a separate operation, there will be a devastating impact on their body image and the way that they feel about themselves.

Of course, we already have a precedent for top-ups and I take issue with the point in the report that top-ups cannot occur. Although I completely agree that as far as possible, we should separate private and NHS treatment, we recognise that in dentistry, for example, a patient can already pay to have a different type of filling and have a top-up in that way. The precedent is already there.

At the core of the issue must be putting the patient first. It cannot be ethically right to force women to go through a separate surgical procedure, with all the risks that go with having a second general anaesthetic; these are not simple procedures carried out under local anaesthetic. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the NHS will uphold the overriding principle, which is that we put the needs of those women first, over and above the other principle, which we all accept is important; nevertheless, it must take second place in this instance.

Secondly, there is the question of who should fund this type of treatment in the future. As I have already said, this is not the first time that we have had implant scandals. Would it be reasonable to expect those who have cosmetic procedures to take out some form of insurance, because of the risk of clinics going out of business and to cover the long-term liability? Can the Minister say whether that is being considered for the long term, so that we do not find ourselves in this position again 10 years down the line, perhaps with other types of implants? There is sometimes a great temptation for clinics to declare themselves bankrupt, only for the same surgeons to set up down the road and for the NHS to pick up significant costs in the future.

Thirdly, let me turn to the ethics of the industry. I wrote an article for The Guardian on 2 January. I actually wrote:

“Perhaps women damaged by complications from oversized breast implants should take their cases to the General Medical Council and ask them to consider how those surgeons mutilating them…could in any way have put their safety first.”

What happened was that The Guardian, as a result of advice from its legal department, removed the word “oversized” without my permission. There is a distinction to be made. For example, a teenage girl may wish to go into the glamour industry; she goes to see a surgeon and has the size of implant that cannot put her safety first in the long term. There are ethical considerations, and we should not allow surgeons off the hook, because they are complicit in promoting what cannot be other than a damaging stereotype for women. They should reconsider the ethics because, as we have heard, these implants are not long-term implants. They have a shelf life and women will inevitably need to have them replaced on numerous occasions if they have them fitted as teenagers, or else they will need significant reconstructive surgery at a later date if they choose not to continue with the same size of implant.

The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons and the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons both claim that they always put patient safety first, but I do not feel that that is the case when we see repeated examples of the type of practice that we have heard about on our forum; I will not repeat the quotes that we have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). In practice, there is a consistent failure to tell women about the long-term implications of having breast implants, and I want to see the General Medical Council investigate the entire ethical basis of the industry and issue some very firm guidance.

I close by raising the issue of a register. I hope that the Minister can update us on plans for the future, so that we do not again see women left at home—sometimes for weeks—suffering from extreme stress because they do not know whether the implant that they have had fitted is one of the implants that we are concerned about. A register would allow proper long-term monitoring of side-effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

I need no nudging, but I take my hon. Friend’s intervention in the friendly manner in which it was intended. I will move on to that.

The group reiterated the earlier advice that women with evidence of ruptured implants should be offered removal, and women with no sign of rupture should talk to their specialists, discuss the pros and cons of removal and decide with their doctor the best way forward.

In January 2012, in line with the interim advice, we published the NHS offer: women who originally received implants from the NHS are entitled to a consultation and a scan if appropriate. Then if the woman and her doctor so decide, the NHS will offer to remove and replace the implants. From the start, we made it clear that we expected private providers to match that offer. Many have done so. In fairness and for balance, I point out that some have been very responsible. I hesitate to mention some, as the list will not be conclusive, but BMI Healthcare, Linea Cosmetic Surgery, Nuffield Health, Ramsay Health Care, Spire Healthcare, The Hospital Group and Transform have been responsible and stepped up to the plate. It would be a shame if this debate cast negative views on all those involved in the plastic surgery industry, but I will come to some of the other points raised before I finish.

Where a private provider has gone out of business or fails to meet its moral and legal obligations, the NHS will provide a consultation, a scan if appropriate and removal, but not normally replacement, of the implants. That policy remains in place today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) wanted me to go on to the question whether the policy should be varied. As has been reiterated today, the Select Committee on Health suggested that women should be able to pay a fee for new implants to be put in place by the NHS during the same operation in which the old ones are taken out. I completely understand why, and I have discussed the issue at length.

There are several points. Allowing a mixture of NHS and privately funded care within a single operation risks undermining a founding principle of the NHS that care is free. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) about co-payments in the NHS for dentistry, glasses and so on—I could go on. I believe that Bevan resigned within two or three years of the formation of the NHS, on that very point. The issue of co-payments goes back a long time. However, I feel that this situation, although complicated, is different. If the NHS were to carry out replacement breast augmentation, it would become responsible for all the aftercare, including possible future replacements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood mentioned, the rupture rate is significant anyway. Breast implants do not last a lifetime; it is unlikely that they will.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the Minister accept that if someone has a gold filling, for example, for which they paid a top-up on the NHS, if that gold filling fails, the NHS will still treat them, rather than expecting them to take responsibility for having the gold filling replaced in the private sector? There is a precedent. Again, I make the point that we must put women first in this situation and not subject them to two operations.

[Anne Milton]

The NHS is free at the point of delivery on the basis of clinical need. The point is that the NHS might not put in a gold filling. I would hate to stray from the issue of co-payments. When I was on the Health Committee, we considered co-payments, and there are numerous areas of inconsistency. My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but—

NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

There are many conditions from which patients suffer that I did not mention in the statement because the purpose of the draft mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board is to improve the quality of services across the board, and the objectives we are looking for are about improvement across the whole service, rather than trying to isolate and identify individual conditions. But the NHS Commissioning Board will indeed go about the task of doing so. In recent years we have increased the proportion of patients with diabetes who have access to the nine recommended processes, and I know we will increase the number in future. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention, among the figures reflected in the report, the fact that, at the end of 2011-12, 99% of people with diabetes had been offered screening for diabetic retinopathy in the previous 12 months—an increase from 98.6% in the preceding quarter.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I particularly welcome the inclusion of the patient experience in the outcome framework. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that commissioners and communities can clearly access the patient experience data so that they can see the real value that communities can place on community hospitals, and may I urge him to set out a clear database of community hospitals across England so that it can be much more readily available?

Mental Health

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), whose speech has immediately entered the list of my top 10 favourite speeches. I thank and commend him for the work he has done over many years as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health.

I state from the outset that I am married to an NHS consultant psychiatrist and that my husband is involved in providing briefings to all Members on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. For that reason, I think it best for me to confine myself mostly to some personal reflections and some concerns that have been raised in my constituency, and in particular to address the issue of stigma.

As we have been told today, one in four people will experience mental illness at some point in their lives. We have heard powerful speeches about that from a number of Members. Like the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I have experienced severe depression: at the happiest time of my life I experienced an episode of post-natal depression, so I know what it is like. I am sure that many other Members and people who are following today’s debate will know exactly what it is like genuinely to feel that your family would be better off without you, and to experience the paralysis that can accompany severe depression.

It has been rightly said today that there is concern about the way in which some GPs handle depression, but I want to make it clear that in my own case, accepting that I had a problem and seeing my GP was very much part of the road to recovery. I think that we should be careful when we talk about how GPs manage depression, because I can tell the House—not only on the basis of my personal experience, but on the basis of what I have heard from others—that there are many GPs out there who provide an excellent service, which I think can only be assisted by a move towards longer appointment times and better training.

We have heard today about the various terms that people use for mental illness. Earlier, we heard it described as a mental health “experience”. I would say to anyone who is listening to the debate that an experience of depression makes many people stronger and more understanding. I am absolutely sure that my own experiences of depression and recovery—recovery is very important—caused me to become a much more sympathetic doctor, and I hope that it made me a more sympathetic and understanding MP, able to recognise the issues in others and respond to them appropriately.

I want to sound a note of caution about employment and depression. Many Members have rightly mentioned the issues surrounding Atos assessments, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would address himself to some of the concerns that had been expressed, but I think that we should be careful about making assumptions. We should not assume that people with depression are unable to work; we should individualise the position.

When I returned to work after having a baby, I was still suffering from severe panic attacks—especially when travelling on the underground—and in retrospect, I realise that I was still significantly depressed, but going back to work was part of my recovery. I know that it can be difficult to challenge the ideas of people who are depressed, but I think it important to present them with challenges and encouragement at some level, because depression is sometimes followed by a crisis of confidence, and getting back to work is part of the road to recovery from depression, however difficult it may feel. We should not make generalisations and assume that no one can return to work when they are depressed.

I pay tribute to all those who help people with mental illness, including the many volunteers in all our constituencies, and I pay particular tribute to a voluntary group in my constituency called Cool Recovery. It is an independent mental health charity which cares for a number of people—not only those who have experience of depression, or are currently living with depression or other forms of mental illness, but those who have recovered from mental illness, and those who care for people who suffer from it.

I feel that such voluntary sector groups are essential if we are to realise some of the benefits that can come from the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I was concerned to hear from the volunteers at Cool Recovery that they do not feel they have been sufficiently involved in the commissioning process, and that there are real anxieties about the extent to which the user voice and the voluntary sector voice are being heard in the new arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will give us an update on what is being done to ensure that there is adequate representation for the user voice and the voluntary sector at every stage on HealthWatch, on health and wellbeing boards, and right up to national level at the NHS Commissioning Board.

[Paul Burstow]

I give an undertaking to answer those points in the letter that I will write to Members.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the Minister for that, and I look forward to reading his response.

I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) will introduce a Bill to remove stigma. From talking to service users and those who have recovered from mental illness, it is clear to me that they are entirely capable of taking a full part in every aspect of life in their community and workplace, and in our national life. I was glad that the Minister and shadow Minister gave their full and unconditional backing to that Bill, as it will mark a very important step in removing the stigma of mental illness. I also join the Minister in paying tribute to the work of Time to Change, and I hope he will commit to continuing to give support to that organisation.

Some 22% of the disease burden in England comes from mental health issues, and it is time that we recognised that in our local and national commissioning. The mental health strategy is excellent, but we now need to ensure it is implemented. I know the Minister has set up a cross-ministerial group centrally, but who in this new system will be accountable for the successful implementation of the strategy locally and regionally—and what levers for change can they exert, and what sanctions will there be if it is not carried out?

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No, I will do no such thing, because the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is completely wrong. I never said any such thing. What I made perfectly clear is that, as has been the case in the past, age will continue to be the principal determinant of health need, and therefore, by extension, that age will be the largest factor in determining the allocation of resources to the NHS. That was true under the last Government; it will continue to be true under this one.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

T5. On 21 June, conscientious, hard-working doctors will be putting their patients before the British Medical Association’s ill-judged call for industrial action. Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House, however, how many surgeries, operations and clinics will be needlessly cancelled, and how much all this will cost the NHS?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I applaud the way in which she has expressed it. The BMA’s proposed action could result in up to 30,000 operations being cancelled, as many as 58,000 diagnostic tests being postponed, and more than 200,000 out-patient appointments being rescheduled. I do not think that the House will understand why the BMA would risk patient safety in that way, when it knows perfectly well that its action will have no benefit and that we cannot now go beyond the basis for pension reform that has been agreed with the majority of the NHS trade unions, especially in circumstances in which doctors will continue to receive an extremely generous pension worth up to £68,000 a year at the end of their working lives. I think that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and I share the view that this is not a justified position for the NHS to take. The pension is intended to be a generous one. Through the negotiations with the BMA and the other trade unions, we arrived at a very generous pension scheme.

EU Working Time Directive (NHS)

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on securing this important debate. Why it matters so much is summed up well by Sir John Temple, in his report, “Time for Training”:

“Training is patient safety for the next 30 years”,

and that is absolutely right.

My own experience is as one of the junior doctors who worked those catastrophically long hours, having qualified at Guy’s in 1986. Before coming to the House, I was involved in teaching and training junior doctors and medical students, including F2—foundation year 2 —doctors, so I have the advantage of seeing the system from its very worst through to the current practice. What we had in 1986 was entirely unacceptable. I was routinely working 100 hours a week, and sometimes up to 120 hours a week. I often worked very long shifts, from Friday morning at 8 am through to 6 pm on a Monday, sometimes without any sleep. It was catastrophic, demoralising, dehumanising and, frankly, dangerous. Training was acquired simply through saturation exposure to techniques. Often the training was ad hoc and the supervision was not ideal. There was an ethical practice that we would find unacceptable today. Often the attitude was: see one, do one, and teach one. Sometimes the see-one stage was omitted.

I remember—I hope that this never happens now because it would be, and it was then, entirely unacceptable—having to insert a chest drain into a patient for the first time. I had a telephone propped on my shoulder and a terrified patient on the bed, but there was no alternative to carrying out the procedure. I am happy to report that the patient survived that experience, but it was not enjoyable for either of us. Both of us were half scared to death as the process went ahead. It was the equivalent of being bayoneted by someone who looks about 12 years old. As I have said, extra time was no guarantee of better training in those days. Happily, the NHS today operates to far higher ethical standards.

However, the firm structure that existed then guaranteed a continuity of care. There was not an issue about contacting the junior doctor because the junior doctor never left the hospital. Professionalism was affected in some ways, especially in the attitudes that were engendered. Sometimes there were very paternalistic attitudes from senior doctors, and certainly attitudes towards consent were not as high as they are today. That was engendered by very long hours and not enough attention given to the quality of training for junior doctors. In addressing this matter, we have to be cautious about referring to the old days as the good old days.

We now have a situation in which there simply are not enough staff to cover shifts. Clinics are routinely cancelled as a result of the inflexibility of compulsory rest periods. For example, if a consultant is called in to carry out an emergency endoscopy, they might then be forced to cancel their clinic for the next day, whereas if we had a little more flexibility about the timing of the rest period—perhaps it could happen within 48 hours—we would not see our patients being unnecessarily inconvenienced.

The availability of experienced staff is poor, as has been highlighted in many reports. Nor are we addressing issues of staff fatigue, to which other Members have referred. I want to read out an e-mail that I received this week from a junior doctor who did not wish to be named, who says, “I regularly do seven 13-hour nights on the trot. The argument is that we are given time off to average out our hours over a six-week period. However, we all end up doing the extra hours anyway, partly by covering for colleagues who are off or who do not exist, or simply by staying on after our shift’s end because there is so much more to do. So we foundation years are doing the long hours but we are just not being paid for them.”

Professionalism faces two problems: either junior doctors work the extra hours and are not paid for them, and are told not to record them sometimes by management; or we develop a clocking-off mentality, which I started to encounter towards the end of the time that I was training junior doctors. For the first time in my career, I heard junior doctors openly talk about clocking off and something not being their problem because they had handed it over to the next doctor on the next shift. That was unheard of when I was a junior doctor: we left when the job was done. We have to be cautious about some consequences in that regard.

Staff absenteeism, which is almost unheard of—I remember one of my colleagues getting tuberculosis and it being a great source of excitement for him, because it meant that he would have some time off for treatment—is increasing. According to a survey by the Royal College of Physicians, the absenteeism rate has increased from 0.8% to 3.5% since the implementation of the directive in 2009. Therefore, the changes towards exhausting shift patterns have not only not resulted in doctors who are less tired, but have led to increased absenteeism. Whether that is due to sickness or to a change in professional attitudes to taking time off is a fine point, but the implementation of the directive has led to serious consequences.

In my area, we have heard about some rotas starting at unacceptable times. I do not think that any hon. Member here would accept that starting a shift at 2 am is acceptable, but it is going on.

As hon. Members have said, we are hearing in our surgeries and postbags that patients and their relatives are noticing changes in continuity of care. The other serious issue is handovers, particularly where senior doctors or consultants are not present. The fact is that shifts do not tally up between junior and senior doctors. Again, referring to the e-mail that I received, on continuity of team, where senior doctors are in different shift patterns there is no sense of a team structure or possibility of handovers being carried out professionally.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an eye-opening speech. Does she agree that there are implications for health inequalities? For a patient who is well educated and knowledgeable about medical matters and/or has a supportive, informed family around them, the issue of handover is perhaps not as serious as for a patient who is not similarly advantaged.

[Dr Wollaston]

Yes, I agree. But even articulate families of patients tell me that sometimes they find it impossible to track down the doctor who has been looking after their relative. It is not just relatives, but general practitioners, who are having this difficulty. I am afraid that, as a result of this loss of continuity, the times have gone when GPs could phone and be guaranteed to have some feedback regarding patient care. Handovers have been identified, time and again, as a significant source of mistakes in the NHS, leading to incorrect diagnoses and treatments, often repeated, unnecessary or even inappropriate investigations and poor communication between patients, relatives and medical colleagues.

The directive results in poor team work, a loss of training opportunities and is, as we have heard—I will not repeat it—expensive, not only in terms of staff time, but in the penalties that are applied to trusts if they breach it. Finally, it does not stop doctors working at other hospitals, so it does not necessarily even address the problem that it was designed to address.

That is enough about the problems. What about the solutions? Nobody here advocates a return to dangerously long hours for junior doctors, because tired doctors are dangerous doctors. We want the safest care for our patients. I should like the Minister to respond to the idea that the definition of “on-call” is overly restrictive. Doctors should be able to sleep on site and be available for occasional emergencies without that counting towards the 48-hour week. The requirement for compulsory rest periods should be far more flexible on timing, and we need special consideration of the problems facing district general hospitals. The directive is one thing for staff in a metropolitan centre, but it is causing a particular crisis in many of our district general hospitals. We should maintain individual opt-outs.

The point about the European working time directive, as has been made so eloquently by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), is that European time is not the same as human normal time. Being realistic, the possibility of a rapid change in the directive is small, so we must look at the alternatives. What progress are we making towards a consultant-delivered service? There is no doubt that the directive does not affect all specialities, and its effect can undoubtedly be mitigated by moving towards a consultant-led service and taking up many of the points raised by Sir John Temple in his report.

There is no doubt that consultant-led care is the safest care for our patients. Much more can be done to make use of existing training opportunities. Not all specialties are affected, but when they are the effect can be mitigated by greater use of, for example, simulation, better design of rotas to enable the shifts and working patterns of seniors and juniors to dovetail so that there are better opportunities to train, using hospitals at night, and separating the emergency model from the routine model so that we have far more emphasis on juniors being able to get the training they need.

Real problems are facing juniors now with getting assessments signed off by senior colleagues, and in the level of their daytime routine supervision. The problem is also that they are not having enough experience signed off, so many doctors have to extend their training, which is a huge source of extra cost for the NHS. Some of that could be addressed with better rota and service design.

We all recognise that the NHS functions as a result of the dedication of its staff, and I pay great tribute to all my former colleagues, and recognise what an excellent job they do on our behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on securing this debate. Anyone who listened to her speech this afternoon would realise that she is an expert in this area and cares passionately about improving the current situation, which, as it will become clear during the course of my remarks, is a problem for the national health service. I have considerable sympathy with the aim of her contribution—to get improvements and changes that will aid the NHS to help those who work within it.

We have had a particularly high-level and intelligent debate in which there have been some powerful contributions—surprisingly, not from many Opposition Members—from my own hon. Friends and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I would like to call him an hon. Friend because of the kind things that he said about me, but protocol forbids me as he is not a paid-up member of the Conservative party. None the less, my thoughts are with him in that respect.

There was an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who spoke with the authority of someone who was a consultant in a national health service hospital before coming to this place. Another powerful and highly informative speech came from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), whose knowledge of the NHS has been gained through direct experience of working within it for many years before coming here.

We had a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who cares passionately about this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made a customarily well-informed speech based on knowledge gained partly from his experiences as an MP with the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust in his constituency, and partly from his background interest in all health matters. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on a very powerful contribution. She rightly holds very strong views on these issues, and they are an important part of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who both, in their own way, fight vociferously for their own local health economies in Hastings and in Kingswood, and show an interest in health debates.

All hon. Members are aware that this issue has been simmering, in one way or another, for many years. Recent news has shown us that dealing with the EU never seems simple, regardless of what is being discussed. I can understand the impatience of a number of my hon. Friends, because I, too, am impatient when I want something to be done that I think is sensible and should be done. Sadly, as we all know from our experiences of working within the European Union and of how that organisation works, we cannot always have instant gratification.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my right hon. Friend think that one of the problems with the EU’s priorities is that it is demanding a 6.8% rise in its budget, rather than dealing with more pressing problems?

[Mr Burns]

I am tempted to go down that path, because I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend. However, time is short and I do not want to upset you, Mr Howarth. I will avoid temptation and keep myself on the straight and narrow.

We could not be clearer about how we want things to move forward. In the coalition agreement almost two years ago, the Government resolved to limit the application of the working time directive in the NHS. That position has not changed. We still believe strongly that working people should be able to work the hours they want. That means they should be able to choose to opt out of the directive’s limit on working hours. However, no one wants a situation where tired doctors are working for far too long, and for that reason it is important that doctors who choose to opt out, and their employers, agree working hours that ensure that patients are not at risk. A common thread running through the contribution of every hon. Member was the importance and necessity of not returning to what is known as the bad old days. Nobody on this side of the House, in any shape or form, would want that to happen. However, it is equally viable and intellectually respectable to argue for more flexibility, as the current situation —as highlighted in many speeches—is causing problems for the NHS. That has to be done in an ordered way. We cannot unilaterally take any action that would compromise the legality of how the European Union works, our contribution and how we operate within the EU.

Health and Social Care Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I have just been reading a kind of risk register—the risk register for Ibuprofen—and I have been reading it in the British National Formulary, which is a kind of recipe book and technical how-to-do manual for doctors and nurses. When I read it, I see that it is scary stuff. If I take this medicine, I might develop a fatal skin reaction, I might bleed to death from a stomach ulcer, I might develop kidney failure, I might collapse with pancreatitis, hepatitis and all sorts of things. Why on earth did I take this medicine—this potentially dangerous Ibuprofen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Dr Wollaston]

Listening to Labour and seeing the extreme shroud waving that has been going on is, frankly, enough to give anyone a headache. I took the Ibuprofen because of what I read in the impact assessment. The impact assessment presents a sensible, balanced portrayal of the realistic risks and benefits, and warns me of many points of which I need to take heed. It is far more likely that I am going to develop indigestion from taking Ibuprofen than that I am going to collapse from a fatal skin reaction.

[Helen Jones]

rose—

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

rose—

[Dr Wollaston]

I am not trying to trivialise the issue; believe me, I understand how vital the NHS is to all our constituents and to patients. My view is that the transition risk register has been elevated to a status far out of proportion to what it merits. I completely understand the points made by Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong—very experienced civil servants who tell us that they would feel constrained in giving full and frank advice. However, we have seen how any detail can be taken out of all proportion in this House; we are all partly responsible for that. As I said, some of the shroud waving over this Bill has been disgraceful, and I know of patients who have been genuinely frightened by it. I would be prepared to see the risk register published, but I accept the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) that it has to be done on the basis of a clear understanding.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I remember, however, a comment that she made to The Guardian, I believe, at the start of this process, when she said that this Bill was like throwing a hand grenade into the NHS. What has changed?

[Dr Wollaston]

There we go—a deliberate misrepresentation. After I made those comments, I wrote to senior colleagues and told them that what I had said was completely different. I was deliberately misquoted on that statement and have been consistently misquoted by Labour Members. They should go back and look at the original.

I feel that it would be reasonable to present all the risks, but it would be crucial for Members of all parties to recognise that we are talking about a lasting change. We would also need to see a change in how risks are extrapolated out of all proportion to what they represent and an end to the deliberate frightening of patients into believing that they will have to pay for health care, which has been a consistent feature of how this Bill has been misrepresented by Labour Members.

[Grahame M. Morris]

In the context of her medicinal anecdote, does the hon. Lady not accept that members of the public at least have the right to read the little inserts in books of pills before they take them? Should we not have the same right to read the risk register?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

The equivalent of that is actually the impact assessment. However, as I have said, I would be prepared to allow the publication of the register, because, in this internet age, the misrepresentation of the Bill, and the extrapolation out of all proportion to the risks, has been a complete disgrace.

[John Pugh]

Does the hon. Lady recall saying that the absence of an intermediary body between small GP commissioning and the National Commissioning Board was a serious flaw in the Bill? Clearly that flaw is still there.

[Dr Wollaston]

I believe that by the time of the next election, our patients will still be going to see GPs. They will still be referred to the hospitals of their choice, that referral will still be free at the point of use, and it will still be based on their needs and not on their ability to pay. The only thing that will be missing will be an apology from the Labour party.