A and E Departments

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many more walk-in centres would be shut if we had to cut the NHS budget, which is what the Labour party wants to do.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The issue of out-of-hours care and the additional pressure on A and E has been present in Suffolk since before the election. Just last Friday, I was in Felixstowe to meet the four patient participation groups there, and yet again out-of-hours care was identified as a real problem. I welcome the reforms that might be announced later this week, but can we ensure that patients realise that we are on their side and that we want them to be back with their family doctor?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely. It is extraordinary that in this debate in Parliament today, Labour Members have their heads in the sand about the low public confidence in out-of-hours GP care, which is a major driver of the problems in A and E departments. We are going to sort out that problem—[Interruption.] If they do not want us to, they are just going to have to watch while we do it.

Accountability and Transparency in the NHS

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and the Backbench Business Committee for calling this debate. I particularly wish to remember all those in my constituency and elsewhere, and their loved ones, who suffered so grievously. I wish to pay tribute to those here today who campaigned to bring these things to light. I also thank the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all other hon. Members for their response to the report a month or so ago.

One of the main thrusts of the Francis report is to:

“Ensure openness, transparency and candour throughout the system about matters of concern”.

This is not the time to debate the Francis report fully—it was commissioned by the Government and it needs full and prompt consideration in Government time—but it is the time to say that the Francis report is of great importance. Mr Francis rightly dismisses the arguments of those who claimed at the time that the inquiry was unnecessary because Stafford hospital was a solitary exception—it was not. It may have been considerably worse than other places, but appalling standards of care have been revealed elsewhere.

The public inquiry has revealed complacency throughout the NHS and beyond; report after report detailed major concerns, which were either ignored or passed to others to deal with. What lay behind that? Perhaps it was a lack of willingness to shout and continue to shout for help when it was needed; or perhaps it was more often a fear of the consequences—the loss of one’s job or the removal of services from the local community.

Even just last week, when, as the shadow Secretary of State rightly said, a report to Monitor suggested removing most emergency, acute and maternity services from Stafford—something my constituents and I strongly oppose for reasons I set out in the House last week—there were those blaming Julie Bailey for the proposals. That comes on top of disgraceful threats—even death threats—that she has received over her work in revealing what Robert Francis, who should know if anyone does, calls the “disaster at Stafford Hospital”.

Let me make it clear that the proposals in the Monitor report are, in the main, a consequence of the financial and clinical pressures that all acute trusts, particularly the smaller ones, are facing. Stafford’s circumstances have done a little to hasten changes, but what happens at Stafford now will face all other such trusts in the coming years. That it is why it is so important that Monitor and the Secretary of State come to a good solution for Stafford, and indeed Cannock, and I will continue to work with them and with my hon. Friends on that. Nobody should take from the Monitor report the message that whistleblowing or more transparency will result in threats to their local services. Indeed, Monitor would be acting contrary to section 62 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 if it acted in such a manner.

Let me raise another, perhaps more justified, fear of the unintended consequences of transparency. Only this week, I heard of a case where a patient could have a life-saving operation, but his chances of surviving it are only 50:50, yet without an operation he will die. Some surgeons are, even now, reluctant to take on the operation because if the patient dies, it will be counted against them in their personal mortality statistics. That is an unintended consequence of transparency, so transparency has to be balanced with understanding the context; otherwise, we will end up with a risk aversion that is so great that patients will suffer.

Transparency can also thrive only in a culture that is not led by blame. One of the doctors who gave evidence to Francis said:

“There was a blame-led culture, the culture being that problems had to be fixed or nursing jobs would be lost.”

How can we persuade the most suitable people to take up vital, often voluntary, roles on trust boards if their attempts to raise problems are met by blame or indifference? As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, transparency must start right here in Parliament. He spoke movingly about moral purpose, and I agree with what he said.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I agree that we do not want to deter people from becoming board members, but surely my hon. Friend must agree that if things are still going wrong and the board is not holding the chief executive and the leadership to account, its members’ positions should be questioned.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I would never disagree with that. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, but there is a danger that there will be so much adverse scrutiny that people will be afraid to come forward. We must challenge that and say, “You have every right, as a board member, to raise whatever you want, whenever you want.”

As I was saying, we need a proper debate here in Parliament on health care in this country, one not constrained by party dogma or blind nostalgia. It is up to us to have that debate and, as a result, give clear direction, rather than simply to react to whatever is thrown at us. We need to debate, for instance, the nonsense of pretending that it is entirely the responsibility of local trusts to deliver. So much is out of their control, be it per-patient funding, which is still far too variable, clinical standards, which are set almost in a vacuum by the royal colleges, or the impact of the European working time directive on costs, rotas and training. We need to debate the impact of the large number of specialisations in the UK—we have 61 as against Norway’s 30—which is driving up costs and driving out vital general medical and surgical expertise. We need to debate emergency and acute tariffs, which have, for many years, meant that hospitals around the country are squeezed and face forced reconfigurations that may not be in the best interests of patients.

Robert Francis also says that one of the main principles is to:

“Make all those who provide care for patients—individuals and organisations—properly accountable for what they do and to ensure that the public is protected from those not fit to provide such a service.”

He also says:

“There must be a proper degree of accountability for senior managers and leaders.”

Accountability was sorely lacking at Mid Staffs. There were attempts to see that responsibility stopped with the board. As I have already said, that is based on the fiction that it is somehow entirely in control of its own destiny. It is not. That does not absolve the board or management, but the responsibility is shared by those who determine so much of the environment in which they operate, including us here. Professional organisations, for instance, have procedures that make it difficult to dismiss staff who are unsuitable. The Government signed up to the working time directive without preparing for the financial and manpower consequences. And for managers, and indeed politicians, targets became more important than care itself. Again, that is our responsibility.

I have already said how strongly I oppose the blame culture, and I am not going to start blaming, but accountability involves responsibility, and far too few people have taken sufficient responsibility in this case. We must reflect and they must reflect on the message that that sends.

Too many inquiries have been left to gather dust on Department shelves, and not just the Department of Health. I and my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), Stone (Mr Cash) and Members further afield, all of whom are affected, will not allow this one to gather dust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), and other Members, on securing it. Transparency and accountability are the hallmark of good governance, but they can involve issues such as whether a patient is on the Liverpool care pathway, whether that is transparent and whether their families know, not solely about the running of a particular trust.

I welcome freedom of information requests, which are among the most useful tools available to a Member of Parliament trying to secure information on data held by hospitals, ambulance services and so on. It is extraordinary, however, that we must resort to those tools to try to get that information and help in holding the people running our services to account.

I accept that the NHS is a complex organisation—imagine a hospital that has issues with bed-blockers, social care, or people trying to find a place in a home, or where ambulances are exceeding their handover targets. Those are interlocking issues. I still think, however, that it is important to hold the chief executives and boards of these trusts to account.

I was late today because I was at a meeting with the chairman and chief executive of our ambulance trust. This is not the first time I have had to work with other MPs to highlight particular failures. In a Westminster Hall debate, I called for the chairman of James Paget hospital to step aside. I have not made that call today. I have asked the chairman of the board to consider carefully the potential issues arising from the CQC report that is due to come out at any moment. It is frustrating that in trying to hit the target people often miss the point. The point is to care for patients.

The Care Quality Commission and Monitor were mentioned earlier. I welcome the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) to introduce unannounced spot checks by CQC. A lot of issues were unveiled as a result of the changes and that is to be welcomed. I welcome the recommendation to merge the CQC and Monitor, as there is a risk of ambiguity over exactly which body is holding people to account. I welcome the move by the Secretary of State to have Ofsted-style inspections. I am sure he will learn lessons and ensure that they are focused on clear issues, and not just on myriad matters that get away from the key point of patient care.

MPs in the east of England came together and, by speaking to the CQC and providing evidence, we managed to stop the ambulance trust gaining foundation trust status, because of the issue of care. Politicians therefore can and should intervene when there is evidence of things going wrong, and not just accept the initial recommendation of Monitor.

I pay tribute to David Hill, chief executive of James Paget hospital. He had been chief executive of the hospital before and went elsewhere in the health care system. He came back and within a week I could see that he had made a difference in the attitude to care. A year on, I am delighted to report that all the warning notices have gone and that in the latest unannounced inspection it was given a clean bill of health. That is great news for the patients and great news for the staff. It is a reminder that being brave and being prepared to incur the wrath of people who assume one is attacking the NHS when one is actually trying to defend the NHS and patients, can be worth hile.

That leads me on to the matter of the difficult jobs we have to do. We have to remind all our governors and board members that they are there to represent the patients. They should not feel cowed. They should be tenacious in pursuing the outcomes that everybody wants in the NHS. These are not easy times—I appreciate that. Let us not have too much hand-wringing about how hard it is. We all know it is, but I believe that politicians of all parties are here to try to support the people. We will not do that by ducking the reality that we have to be accountable. That is true in this House if we let down our constituents, but it is also true for the members of boards who do not hold their chief executive to account and demand nothing but the best for their patients.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I know that the hon. Lady had tabled a question on this matter. The point is that a foundation trust has autonomy and cannot be coerced or forced into a merger. It is for the board of that trust to make decisions for the benefit of patients.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

T8. Patients in Suffolk are very worried about the performance of the ambulance service. In the past two months, less than 60% of ambulances have hit the target for reaching emergency cases. The strategic health authority and others, including all the MPs in the region, are not happy about that. Will the Government intervene, too?

[Anna Soubry]

With two Ministers in the Department from the east of England, I can assure my hon. Friend that all of us are aware of the concerns that she and other Members have about their ambulance trust and, if I may say so as an east midlands MP, about the East Midlands ambulance trust. I know that Earl Howe, who has responsibility overall, has offered a meeting with Members from the east of England, and I am sure that that meeting will produce the sort of benefits that everyone hopes for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must find time for Dr Coffey.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), is my constituency neighbour. He will know that, although the East of England Ambulance trust is hitting its targets for the entire region, it is not helping in Suffolk. Will he advise on what more we can do locally to ensure that it serves all rural patients?

[Dr Poulter]

The problem has affected both Suffolk and Norfolk—the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), also takes an active interest in it. One problem was that the managers of the local ambulance trust were not listening to front-line staff on how to design and deliver services. In a staff survey, only 4% of front-line staff in the East of England Ambulance Service said they were being properly listened to, which is completely unacceptable. This Government, in contrast to the previous one, want to put front-line professionals in charge of running services, meaning that, in future, more patients will be properly prioritised and ambulance response times will be better met.

Care and Support

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will see in the progress report that we need to discuss both the universal options for paying for the Dilnot model of care and voluntary, opt-in systems. The latter could have a character not dissimilar to that he describes.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I welcome many measures in the paper, including on the transition from being a child needing care to becoming an adult needing care, and on allowing people to choose where they want to end their life in palliative care. I represent a coastal constituency. Many people retire to the coast to enjoy the benefits of the sea air. Will he assure me that Suffolk county council will not be penalised by the fact that, in bringing families together, they will not take on extra care burdens for which they had not planned?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. We very much reflect the need for care and health care in the allocation of resources to local authorities through the formula grant, and the allocation of resources to the NHS through the NHS resource allocation.

Health Transition Risk Register

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No. The hon. Gentleman should know that in accordance with the FOI Act, if a ministerial veto were to be considered, it would be considered on the merits of any individual case.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has followed the policy laid down by the previous Government on the application of the Act and that nothing has changed in that respect in policy terms?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, Mr Speaker, I cannot comment on the policies of the previous Labour Government. I would be happy, if the right hon. Member for Leigh agrees, to publish the risk management strategy that the Department of Health had in place in 2009, which was not placed in the public domain at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Anne Milton]

The only bit of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question that I recognise is a diatribe from the Labour party that perpetuates a myth about the Bill and fails to understand that the Bill is about the public of this country. This is about the people—patients—getting the health care that they need and deserve.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

May I pass on the representation of a health care professional in my constituency—one of the general practitioners involved in the commissioning group—who said that he felt the Health and Social Care Bill had been written for GPs, and that it was perfect for improving care in our community?

[Anne Milton]

My hon. Friend echoes many of the comments that I have heard as I have gone around the country. Without the Bill, we cannot strip out primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, which will save £4.5 billion over this Parliament. I cannot see anybody going out on a march to save PCTs and SHAs. The public want the outcomes and the quality of care that they deserve, which they were denied under the previous Government.

Manufacturing

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

The hon. Gentleman says that he is not convinced. I think that if the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has responsibility for business and enterprise, were here, he might have shed a quiet tear at that, because there he is, doing all this work in the Government and being responsible for all these sectors, including manufacturing and delivering the advanced manufacturing growth review. There are arguments about the titles that people should have, but the reality is that he does an enormous amount for manufacturing.

On strategy, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the growth review that we published with the Budget, he will see that there was a range of specific commitments, ranging from our advanced manufacturing review to commitments across a host of manufacturing sectors. We are doing further work on the future of manufacturing through the foresight exercise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is leading. Manufacturing was a crucial strand of the growth review and there is now a forward-looking exercise in the foresight framework.

I will briefly take the House through some of the things that we are doing to strengthen manufacturing, which as I said were covered in the Government’s “The Plan for Growth”. Lowering business taxes is fundamental. That is why we are planning to cut corporation tax year on year. Although some people have criticised our decisions on the structure of corporation tax, it is worth remembering that we have legislated to extend the capital allowances and short-life assets scheme for plant and machinery from four years to eight years to improve the tax incentives.

We are also backing innovation. Several Members from both sides of the House have referred to the importance of the research and development base. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to draw on the lessons from Germany, which has been referred to favourably on both sides of the House, and to learn from its Fraunhofer institutes. Those were a model for the technology innovation centres that we are setting up with £200 million, even in these tough times. We have already identified some of those centres, notably in advanced manufacturing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is opening the National Composites Centre in Bristol today. That is the new home of world-class innovation in the design and manufacture of composites. We have also announced that there will be technology innovation centres in cell therapies and offshore renewables, and that there are more to come. We are trying to plug the gap between the pure research in universities and the commercialisation for which individual companies are responsible—the so-called valley of death. The technology innovation centres are one way in which we can plug that gap.

We are also committed to improving our performance on exporting. That is why we launched the national export challenge, a series of initiatives to help SMEs take the first steps to break into new markets. Currently, only one in five companies in Britain export. We want to increase that to one in four. That means reaching out to mittelstand businesses, or SMEs, that have not thought about exporting. That is why we have set UK Trade & Investment the target of doubling its client base to 50,000 businesses in the next three years.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I have heard a lot of compliments about UKTI. However, when I met my local enterprise partnership earlier this week, the concern was expressed that UKTI reacts to requests, perhaps from bigger companies, rather than having a proactive strategy. Do you have any thoughts on how that might change?

[Mr Willetts]

In the absence of Madam Deputy Speaker responding to that challenge, I will. The Prime Minister urges all of us in his Government to be as proactive as possible whenever we go abroad, ensuring that we are properly equipped with a sense of the key business opportunities that are relevant to the particular mission that we are on. We have asked UKTI to set out what we call a high-value opportunities programme to identify really big projects around the world where there are opportunities for British companies and suppliers to invest and provide. We are systematically reviewing the high-value opportunities provided by large-scale projects around the world, which we believe British companies can take advantage of by going out and battling for contracts. We are improving the tax system, we are backing R and D and innovation and we are committed to improving our performance on exports.

NHS Care of Older People

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and all hon. Members who supported the call for it—as I did.

I do not pretend to be a health care professional, even though I use the title “Dr”. Nor do I profess expertise in that area. However, the care given to those older people who need it—I tend to use the word “elderly”, although it may not be politically correct—is important. Usually, the start and end of life is when we use NHS care the most, and those people should be given the best care possible. We should make sure failures are dealt with, and we should speak up about them in Parliament.

Given the time constraints, I had thought of spending a little time on talking about the terminally ill. Hon. Members may know that I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the provision of hydration and nutrition. We have also had Westminster Hall debates about palliative care in eastern England, and I recognise the valuable work that is done. However, it is right to focus on the Care Quality Commission report and individual hospitals, so that our constituents know we are speaking up for them, and so that their voice is heard in Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge went into great detail about the CQC report, and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) went into detail on a particular case. The view of representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, given in informal discussions, about evidence given or sentiments expressed in submissions to the Francis inquiry, was telling. There was concern about leadership and about how people would be treated if they stood up and spoke up for patients—that they would be ignored, or, worse, demoted. I am sure that that shocked the nursing profession and other people, and I recognise that attempts are being made to deal with that, so I do not mean to be condemnatory.

My constituency has the 15th highest proportion of pensioners. Some 55% of my constituents are over 55, so the issue we are discussing is important there. The constituency also covers two primary care trusts—NHS Suffolk, and Great Yarmouth and Waveney—and we have three hospitals that provide care. They are the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, Ipswich hospital and James Paget university hospital. I am afraid that two of those were on the list of failing hospitals and, understandably, local residents were very upset. That is reflected in the number of complaints made to me, or copied to me, about people’s experiences when they are trying to get care.

As to Ipswich, after the first failure, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) met the chairman and director of nursing. I was impressed straight away that the director of nursing recognised absolutely that there had been failings. That recognition and acceptance of failings was important to me. The suggestion was made at the time that not all the staff accepted, initially, that there were failings, and that the feedback was met with an element of rejection. However, every member of staff quickly recognised that things had to change.

An action plan of changes and improvements to local ward leadership was set out, and fresh training was provided. A high focus was put on that, including additional support for patients with dementia. The hospital was inspected on a second occasion and, although the report has not yet been formally issued, I understand that it will pass—it should be congratulated on that—that a marked improvement was noted and that patient satisfaction was much higher.

[Neil Carmichael]

It is worth distinguishing between acute and community hospitals. That would inform the debate, because, obviously, chronic and non-chronic conditions are different. It would be helpful to know which hospitals are which, and whether that will help us to think about the subject.

[Dr Coffey]

Ipswich hospital is a district general hospital, if that helps my hon. Friend. It provides acute care, and is not just focused on community care. I want to say thank you and well done to the director of nursing and all the medical teams at the hospital for the changes they have made.

In contrast, James Paget hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has failed a second inspection. The second report showed improvements, but not consistent improvements. There were still minor concerns in several areas, and continued moderate concerns on meeting nutritional needs and the management of medicines. The second report is complimentary about staff and training, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has already mentioned, the hospital was cited in a Nursing and Midwifery Council report as having good training levels. To reinforce that point, the CQC suggested that patients’ needs were generally met. At times it was possible that not all the staff were available or deployed in the most effective way, but generally patients had the staffing appropriate to their needs. The third inspection has taken place. Its outcome is not yet formally known, and the hospital has not received the draft report, but I have not heard positive vibes so far.

As to my interaction with the leadership, I must say at the outset that I recognise that it was limited. My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Great Yarmouth have taken a much greater role, because a relatively small number of patients from my constituency go to the hospital in question. After the first inspection, however, I was assured that the failures were just a blip, and that things were already under way. Doubt was cast on the quality of the inspection carried out by the CQC—that was said to me by the chairman of the hospital trust. I did not accept that, because those CQC inspections are intended to be a snapshot and to take a view. Frankly, if one patient experiences bad care, that is an automatic failure. I think that hon. Members would recognise that.

I was reassured, however, by the expectation of changes, which were under way; but, as I have mentioned, the second inspection continued to find failings in dealings with older patients. I did not meet the hospital manager and chairman after the inspection, but my colleagues did and I was not reassured by the report of that meeting. Yet again it seemed that doubt was being cast on the validity of the CQC inspection by the chairman of the trust—though not, I understand, by the chief executive.

We three MPs have together agreed a course of action to press the hospital on its improvements for our constituents, and it has responded. As I said, a third inspection has been held, and I am highly concerned that a third failure will be reported. Monitor has now issued a red governance rating, which I believe is automatic, but I understand that it has also had conversations with the leadership. I have received copies of constituents’ complaints, and seen a whistleblowing letter from GPs from the consortium Health East. The letter says:

“As a group of concerned GPs we have been forced to pursue this whistle blowing option, because we are concerned that our new GP consortium ‘Health East’ may fail to be successful due to the failings of our main, acute provider the James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Health East will be depending on the Trust to provide the acute care for most of our patients and we have lost confidence in the ability of its leadership to correct its current failings. Please act quickly before we have yet another Mid Staffs on our hands.”

It ends:

“We apologise once again for having to take this whistle blowing option, but we need you to put pressure on appropriate organisations to put the issues right before our patients suffer.”

I do not suggest that someone going into the hospital will automatically suffer poor care, but that is the reaction of GPs who are expected to work with patients to ensure that they receive the best care.

In the circumstances, it is my role to press the leadership of the James Paget hospital on constituents’ behalf. In particular, the chairman of the hospital trust should consider his position. I appreciate that the financial risk at the hospital is low, and that that may reflect good financial governance, but patient care is key. The chairman has provided useful leadership, but—after two failed care inspections and with the possibility of a third—it is time for him to step aside and allow new leadership to come forward.

I will apologise to the chairman of the trust, because although I sent him a communication about what I would say in this debate, I could not speak to him personally. I should also say that I do not make my suggestion on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney—who is in his place—and for Great Yarmouth. I do not make such a call lightly, but there is concern that patients may be reluctant to go to that hospital. Perhaps that is not a widely-experienced feeling, but often people worry about going to a particular hospital because of the perception of concern. We cannot afford that, and must not stand quietly by without expressing a view.

I have spoken for 10 minutes and understand that others want to speak. There are other issues, such as community care and confidence in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and others, including myself, have pressed the case about ambulance services and response times. Some of our constituents live more than an hour from the nearest hospital, so concerns about failure to respond within the eight-minute target are appropriate. I am meeting Ministers another time to discuss that matter.

I do not make the request that I made about the James Paget hospital in Parliament lightly, but I believe that it is necessary for the safety, well-being and protection of patients in Suffolk Coastal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for timetabling it. There are few issues that mean more to me or make me more angry than the poor treatment of older people, especially by our NHS. Therefore, it is highly important that we focus on that today.

I shall begin where other hon. Members might not have had time to go—by questioning our values. The hon. Member for Stourbridge listed societal problems as being one of the causes of indignity in hospitals and, when I intervened to ask her about that, she said that she did not have enough time to go into the subject. I hope I can assist her by taking us on that journey.

I am afraid that I shall start by disagreeing with the hon. Lady. I find it hard to believe that there is a lack of moral value or preference in society. Part of the problem is that those values are not made explicit often enough. We have talked much about dignity today. That word is often used, but rarely explored. I question and doubt the point made by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about older people being treated differently in other countries. If that is the case, it is incumbent upon us as politicians to make our values absolutely clear. In many ways, the national health service is, for Britain, an expression of our moral choices and preferences. Whether or not we talk about the NHS in those terms, that is what it is.

Let us begin by asking what we mean by “dignity.” It means inherently respecting the other person because of their humanity. In practice, that means demonstrating they are listened to, cared for and thought of, no matter who they are or what their personal circumstances are. Let me quote from the CQC report to give an example of what I mean and why it is so important that we make that absolutely explicit. In the report’s overview by Dame Jo Williams, she mentioned that they found cases where they believed that staff stripped patients of their dignity. She says:

“People were spoken over, and not spoken to…left without call bells, ignored for hours on end, or not given assistance to do the basics of life.”

When we talk about dignity, that is what we really mean. I find it hard to believe that we live in a Britain where most people would walk past, look the other way or not consider the needs of somebody who is extremely vulnerable and stripped of the basic necessities of life. The vast majority of people in our country would consider that situation to be utterly intolerable.

The question is: what is going on in the health service that leads us to see cases in our surgeries and examples among our families where people are bereft of their dignity? Given that we set such high moral value by the appropriate respect given to people because of their inherent dignity, what is going on in the health service that allows such a situation to occur? I accept other hon. Members’ points about the level of frequency and the commitment of staff by and large, and I was also most taken by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is no longer in her place, about the best practice demonstrated to her. Given that we know what the right answer is, we need to consider what happens when there is a failure.

[Dr Coffey]

I strongly endorse what the hon. Lady is saying. What is even more extraordinary is how there are such different experiences within a single hospital. That is why local leadership is absolutely critical to getting this right.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady, who spoke so well and so bravely earlier, for her intervention. I will come on to describe the differences within hospitals—a point at the heart of the debate.

Last year, the Wirral University Teaching Hospital Trust experienced some of the worst staff survey results in England. They were awful. The percentage of people who would recommend our local hospital to a member of their family was disturbingly low. I know I speak for other hon. Members in the area when I say that we are extremely concerned about this. The trust has a plan of action to try and put this right and there are many examples of the best quality of care being given to my constituents. However, some wards have been very poor. What we have observed locally relates exactly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Some wards are very good and some are extremely poor, and the CQC report also found that. Some of the places of most concern also had very good practice, so this is a problem.

We ought to ask the following questions about staff in the NHS, and I think that they should ask the same questions of themselves. The first question relates to the point that I started with: do they have the right values? Do they make the right moral choices? Do they have the right preferences? By and large, I think our answer would be yes. I do not believe that people in this country somehow just do not care—I think that that is wrong. The second question is: are NHS staff empowered to make choices in line with those values—the basic right to dignity and sense of humanity that we want them to? Are they empowered? Finally, in line with the points that have just been made, are they accountable if that does not happen? That is a crucial point.

The Front Line Care report is an important report written under the previous Government about the future of nursing. There is, perhaps, a missed opportunity. It covers, in detail, many of the questions that we have about nursing care. My mother was a nurse. Her line on nursing is that a nurse’s job is whatever the patient needs. That coheres entirely with both the Front Line Care report and the CQC report, which points out the problem alluded to by other hon. Members. Dame Jo Williams states that care seems to be:

“focusing on the unit of work, rather than the person who needs to be looked after.”

We need staff who are empowered to provide person-led care that looks at the needs of each person, and delivers for them what they need in the health service.

There is, of course, the question of targets. The Government have moved towards dropping some of the waiting list targets that were in place under the previous Government. Is this the kind of thing we can have targets for? I am not sure. However, I know that we know good quality when we see it. If the model of staffing for the dignified and respectful care of people is right, then that will drive up the quality of experience they receive. Leaving aside whether we have targets, quality of experience can definitely be monitored. There are some difficulties relating to monitoring older people, not least people who die in hospital. It can be very difficult to ask for feedback about the death of a loved one, but we need to find a way of asking. A good death is at the heart of what it means to be a dignified person. I encourage all hospitals to think carefully about how they ask for feedback from the relatives of a patient who has died. Even in the case of an older person with dementia, how do we get feedback on how the NHS has treated them?

As politicians, we need to back nursing staff and doctors. At the beginning of my speech, I tried to be very clear about the values that we espouse and I hope that they are shared across the Chamber. Those values give people absolute faith about what is expected. We can be clearer about the standards of care that we expect. I have concerns about systems, such as the red tray one, which rely on a tick-box culture, rather than saying, “Here is the standard that we expect people to live up to and it is your responsibility to do so”. How people in different wards meet those standards would be different, but they must meet them.

I would set the following test for the NHS. I believe in the NHS not merely through custom and practice, but as an article of my political faith. It is a fundamental expression of our values that everybody should be looked after if, through no fault of their own, they become unwell. Everybody should be taken care of. That means that if one person is not taken care of in the NHS—whether they are related to us, or nothing to do with us—in the way that we would expect for a member of our family, then that is not good enough. We should articulate that value. I hope—and know, in my case—that local leaders of hospitals share the belief that we should care for people in the NHS as though they were members of our family and give them the dignity to which they have an absolute moral right. We need to articulate those values and then make people empowered and accountable to living up to them in the NHS.

National Health Service

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that I protected the NHS front line as Health Secretary. As Health Secretary, I would not have introduced a £2.5 billion reorganisation when the NHS is facing severe financial stress.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is it fair to say that under his leadership of the NHS, Monitor suggested that it needed to make efficiency savings? Those are coming through now, but the right hon. Gentleman is trying to present them as cuts to front-line services.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

May I take it as read that the NHS will struggle to find the £20 billion savings agreed in the Labour Budget? May I take it as read that that will impact on services and that people will notice and probably blame this Government’s legislation regardless of whether or not it compounds the problem? The debate we have been having on how NHS spending is or is not to be ring-fenced is almost a sideshow, compared with the huge challenge that is consistently emphasised by the Chairman of the Health Committee.

I draw Members’ attention to the fact that serious financial trouble is already breaking out in the acute sector. Seven of the 19 foundation trusts in the north-west have a red light, and that region is one of the more stable ones that we could consider. I cannot see any obvious happy endings, even without the Bill. Without the Bill we would still have competition by price, competition law would still be applicable, PCTs would still be capable of looking for the lowest common denominator and we would still have an unaccountable NHS.

To add to the general misery I am trying to perpetuate, on Saturday I had a severe abscess on my tooth, which was extraordinarily painful and unpleasant. After taking large doses of ibuprofen, which gave me a little relief for an hour, and my face being swollen and peculiar—a little more peculiar than it currently is—I sat up in bed in the middle of the night with my iPad looking up home remedies on the internet—cloves, bicarbonate of soda and so on. I found forums populated by desperate sufferers looking for a fix. What surprised me most were the American contributors, a considerable number of whom were obviously afraid to go to a dentist, despite the fact that the US is a rich country with no shortage of good dentists. They were settling for severe and continuous pain or for hit-and-miss experimentation, rather than risking debt and bankruptcy. Thankfully, I was in the UK and we have the NHS. On Sunday night, almost unbelievably, I was seen at 6.15 by an emergency dentist, a Polish dentist at the former Litherland town hall, which is now a busy Sefton NHS walk-in centre with a pharmacy attached—a service I did not know existed prior to these events.

Thankfully, the NHS is an institution built on solidarity. Through the state, we guarantee by our taxes each other treatment according to need and irrespective of means. It is a moral compact and Governments have been prepared to carry out that compact by ensuring that the services that are needed exist. Historically, they have done this in two ways: first, by buying services on our behalf; and secondly by providing services directly on our behalf. Governments and the people working in the NHS have done this relatively well and relatively efficiently, as the Wanless report and the Commonwealth Fund report have rigorously and exhaustively demonstrated. That is indisputable.

What is strange about recent developments is the Government shying away from their role as a provider of health care. The original debate was over the renouncing of the Secretary of State’s role as a provider, but we can also see the cutting loose of all hospitals as free-standing foundation trusts; the blurring of boundaries between NHS providers and other sorts of providers, with NHS providers doing more private work and the private sector doing more public work; the forcing—genuine forcing in some places—of non-hospital staff working for the NHS to become independent social enterprises; the neutrality of the Department of Health on whether individual NHS providers or provider networks survive, a neutrality that will be severely tested in the months to come; and the willingness to make NHS provision contestable as a matter of principle, rather than one of pragmatism. Not many people have noticed the ending of the Secretary of State’s powers to create a new foundation trust or hospital post-2015. We might have seen the last new NHS hospital opened by a Secretary of State in this country.

I found the Secretary of State’s unwillingness to stick to the wording of the Health Act 2006 slightly bizarre, if only because that would easily have brought peace, and may have brought peace now, depending on what exactly has happened in the House of Lords. In a sense, we all know that the Secretary of State does not, has not and cannot provide all the services himself and should not try to micro-manage. I did not seriously expect him to turn up at Litherland town hall on Sunday—visions of Marathon Man come before me. What concerns me is the ideological presumption that the Secretary of State should only be a purchaser or commissioner. There is a good reason for that concern; it is only possible to purchase in a market what that market offers. Markets are splendid things, offering choice and variety, but they do not have a guarantee that people will get what they are entitled to, and they do not ensure that health inequalities, or any sort of inequality, can be eroded, and they do not guarantee that public resources are spent and used in the most efficient way. They may lead to that, but not necessarily. Direct state provision is often a better option.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I respect my hon. Friend’s point of view, but surely what matters is quality of care for patients, which can be provided as well in the private sector as it can in the public sector, and it is not necessarily guaranteed in the public sector, as events at the Mid Staffordshire hospital have shown.

[John Pugh]

I did not say that it was guaranteed by the public sector. That is not the point I was making at all. Guaranteeing entitlement, addressing inequalities and ensuring public value are, to be blunt, largely the point of the NHS. I can quite understand—I partly regret it—that a degree of cynicism might exist about the public service ethos, and a sort of nostalgic support for that can sometimes be in place when the reality is that it is not there. There is doubt about its true impact and people inside and outside the NHS sometimes show that degree of cynicism, which is regrettable. I can understand the worry that NHS providers can become lax or inefficient or unambitious if they are not challenged, but the answer to that is not necessarily or obviously to get out of the provision business full stop, embrace the market, set up strange control markets with huge transactional costs, strange tariffs and the multiplicity of bean counters that go along with that. Of course there is also greater legal complexity. The end result of that is something that has few of the virtues of a real market and most of the vices. The Labour Government were to some extent part and parcel of producing such a market. I see no reason to make the state just a purchaser and never a provider, and it is not obvious to me that the answer is to hand over the money to one set of providers, the GPs, particularly if the pretext for doing so is to harden the commissioner-provider split, because GPs are providers.

In conclusion, publicly funded provision—public service infused with the right ethos—is often the most efficient and effective option, provided that it is coupled with genuine, local and rigorous accountability. That is what happens in many successful systems, such as Sweden’s, and it is a liberal solution. So far, there is not enough of it, although the Bill makes laudable moves in that direction, with health and wellbeing boards and so on, but this strange, unargued and ideological withdrawal from provision or interest in provision taints everything and leaks poison into the system—like an abscess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). I do not want to impugn his integrity, or to suggest that what he wants for the NHS is not exactly what I want. The issue is how we do that. Unfortunately, some unhelpful remarks were made in the run-up to the general election. At the least, they were disingenuous; at worst they were duplicitous. This debate is about trust, and there are serious questions about whether we can trust the Government with our NHS.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has argued that pre-election pledges have been broken, and I want to speak specifically about how that relates to NHS funding. The first broken promise came within months of the general election. We have heard about the posters that we all saw as we went round our constituencies, showing a congenial right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, promising to

“cut the deficit, not the NHS”.

Last October’s spending review seemed to support that position, with a 1.3% increase in NHS resource spending and real-terms growth of what seemed to be 0.4%. The Secretary of State, who is just returning to his place, was unable to answer my question on that. I want to talk abut management costs, because the Department is focusing on that spending. It is important to be clear about management costs in the NHS budget. In 1999, they were less than 3%; in 2010, they were just over 3%. Independent research has shown that, if anything, the NHS is under-managed rather than over-managed. [Interruption.] I can certainly provide evidence for hon. Members.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I am sorry; I am not going to give way.

We should compare our health care management costs with those in the United States, where they run at over 20%. We need to be very careful about what we are talking about.