Southern Cross Care Homes

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I said in response to the original question that there would be no relaxation of the standards when it came to the registration of new homes, and that there would be no rush but a smooth transition to the running of the businesses by new operators. There was no suggestion that the process would take place in a rushed way. I urge the hon. Lady to read the record later.

As for the role of the CQC, we made it clear last year that we would allow it to recruit the necessary staff, and that there would be no limit to its ability to recruit staff whom it felt that it needed in order to do its job.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

What other lessons have the Government learned from this case? The new regulatory measures in the Health and Social Care Bill are welcome, but if greater proportions of both health and social care are being exposed to this level of speculative capital, do the Government not need to reflect on whether further measures are required?

[Paul Burstow]

I am keen not to start leaping to lots of conclusions. About 77% of all social care provision in England is already in the private sector. This is not an experiment, but a fact of life that has evolved over the last 20 and 30 years and has been overseen by Administrations of all colours. What we do need to do is ensure that we have effective, proportionate regulation that safeguards the interests of residents who see these homes as their homes, along with robust arrangements on the ground to safeguard good quality.

NHS Future Forum

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will make clear to the right hon. Lady, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that we will not let waiting times rise. We will continue to maintain downward pressure, but it is very important that we do not treat waiting times in the NHS as the only measure of performance. It is more than that: it is the quality of care that is provided, not just the access to care.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am very sorry to say that the Secretary of State demonstrated a creative interpretation of the coalition agreement when he launched his policy last July. What can he say to the House to reassure us that he will not make the same creative interpretation of the Future Forum’s recommendations, particularly in relation to the risk of the marketisation of health services?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that when I came forward with the White Paper last year, or the Command Paper in December, or the Bill, we did so collectively as a Government, and I can assure him and all my colleagues that we will continue collectively to agree on the basis on which we take all these issues forward.

Future of the NHS

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am going to carry on and make a little progress.

If the Deputy Prime Minister is not going to sell out the principles of the NHS like he has the principles of his party, he must toughen the tests for the Bill and help stop the market free-for-all in the Government’s plans. If he and his party mean what they say, they can start today by backing us and backing the motion. It calls on the Government to drop

“the damaging and unjustified market-based approach”,

exactly as the Liberal Democrat spring conference did, and to

“uphold the Coalition Agreement promise to stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS which have got in the way of patient care”.

There is no mandate for this, the biggest reorganisation in NHS history, either from the general election or from the coalition agreement.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about consistency, he will know that since the publication of the White Paper last year, my concerns about the proposal have been well established. The motion, however, castigates top-down reorganisation. Will he apologise for the previous Government engaging in substantial top-down reorganisations time and time again, including the introduction of the independent sector treatment centres, which lost millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money?

[John Healey]

Some of the reorganisations in the 13 years of our Government played an important part in the reform and the great gains that patients saw in the NHS. However, it is also the case—and we learn from this—that reorganisations often take longer, save less, cost more and have less impact on improving care for patients than envisaged at the outset. We learned that lesson towards the end of our 13 years, which is why we had a period of important stability in the NHS, but it is a lesson that the Conservatives have failed to learn—extraordinarily so, as we all thought that they had learned it, because NHS reorganisation is exactly what the Prime Minister promised not to do before the election.

The Prime Minister’s broken promise on NHS reorganisation is part of the reason for the growing doubt and distrust about whether he is making the right decisions for the right reasons on the NHS. He promised to give the NHS a real rise in funding, but the Budget this year confirmed a £1 billion shortfall in England. He promised to protect front-line services, but nursing posts are already going, and the Royal College of Nursing expects 40,000 NHS jobs to go in the next four years. The Prime Minister promised a moratorium on hospital A and E, and maternity service closures, but some are now going ahead, and more will follow—without public consultation—under the Health and Social Care Bill plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand and agree with my hon. Friend. I thought it was outrageous for the shadow Secretary of State to say, “Oh, they promised a moratorium and now some closures are taking place.” Why? Because we were left what were, in effect, faits accomplis by the previous Government and it was impossible to change them. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) would feel the same as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).

[Andrew George]

I can confirm that we agree on the issue of principle and that I am not questioning the Secretary of State’s personal commitment. The issue remains one mentioned in the motion: the extent to which the policy in the Health and Social Care Bill is not just another top-down reorganisation of the sort that the coalition Government said they would stop and the extent to which the policy being driven through Parliament, on which a listening exercise is taking place, delivers what is in the coalition agreement. The debate is about the extent to which the Bill reflects the coalition programme agreement.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the coalition agreement supports, in essence, all the principles of the Bill, with the exception of the specific consequence of the abolition of the strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. As with the whole of the Bill and its related measures, that proposal was the subject of collective agreement and it flows directly from the belief, shared not least by him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, that we need much stronger local democratic accountability in the NHS. We are constructing health and wellbeing boards as an integral part of local authorities, and he will know that the overwhelming majority of local authorities which have volunteered to be early implementers of that approach believe precisely that democratic accountability is an essential part of the future of the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When in government, the Labour party acknowledged that the NHS would have to make considerable efficiency savings over the next few years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), the Chairman of the Health Committee, has described that as the Nicholson challenge. The more I listen to speeches from Opposition Members, the more I am convinced that their opposition to the Bill is a cynical exercise. Given the Nicholson challenge, if at any time any hospital gets into difficulty, the Opposition will simply say, “That’s a consequence of the health reforms.”

All of us in the House want to ensure that we get the health reforms right. I suspect that for all Members of Parliament the NHS in their own constituencies is one of the most important political and, indeed, constituency issues, but for me one of the main issues was, for much of the last Parliament—and still is—the need to retain the full range of services at Horton general hospital in Banbury. If there are difficulties in the NHS, it is hospitals such as the Horton that will experience them first. It is therefore imperative, for me, that we get the reforms right, but I have every confidence that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team will get them right.

The Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), and pretty well every other health Minister has been to Banbury to visit the Horton. As the Secretary of State made clear to GPs in Banbury not so long ago, GP commissioning enables GPs to put their confidence in their local hospitals by commissioning services for them. In my county we will be replacing an Oxfordshire-wide PCT with an Oxfordshire-wide GP-led commissioning body, with GPs in the county working collaboratively.

In the brief time I have to speak, I want to make two points to Ministers. While I am sure it is right for us to pause and listen, we should also recall that GPs are keen to get on with this task. I have had public meetings in my constituency that have been open to every GP on my patch, and the message that I have received from them is that they want to be catalysts for change: they want to be able to shape health services in Oxfordshire.

GPs throughout the county recently elected Dr Stephen Richards to lead the development of the Oxfordshire GP consortium. His first comment was this:

“GP practices are the bedrock of the NHS. Now, the whole GP community, from partners and sessional doctors through to GP trainees are in a unique position to reshape health care for the population of Oxfordshire.

The new Consortium Lead and the Locality Leads in OGPC”—

the Oxfordshire GP consortium—

“will have much greater influence over the improvement of patient care. These GPs will be accountable to their GP colleagues”

and

“to the public... I aspire to Oxfordshire leading the way in developing ‘Evidence Based Commissioning’. A new form of commissioning that offers contracts based on incentives and agreed improved patient outcomes.”

[Andrew George]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tony Baldry]

No, I am not going to give way as I am conscious that many Members wish to speak, and Madam Deputy Speaker has already told me off this afternoon for taking too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and I was glad that his speech contained an element of recognition of the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh), who set out far more articulately than I could many of the concerns about the Bill that underpin this evening’s debate. These concerns have been raised by Liberal Democrat Members and I know for a fact that a number of Conservative colleagues feel the same way about aspects of the reform, although that has not been articulated this evening.

I wish to get one piece of rough and tumble out of the way before I commence with the substantive comments I wish to make in the short time available to me. I will not be supporting Labour’s motion this evening because to do so would be to endorse Labour’s history of having introduced the following: independent treatment centres, which wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money; alternative providers of medical services enforced through primary care trusts; and many other top-down reorganisations, which Labour Members now pretend they are against. It would also mean endorsing their approach to the whole concept of top-down reorganisations, the billions that Labour wasted on NHS IT systems and Labour’s failure to address the unfair funding formula, which set back my part of the country significantly and left it in significant debt, from which it is still trying to escape.

I set out my position in the Second Reading debate on the Health and Social Care Bill, on 31 January, when I refused to support the Government because of the criticisms and concerns that I raised then. I do not need to repeat them now, but I also made it clear then, as I do now, that I would vote against the Government on Third Reading if the Bill were to look in any way like the measure that we saw come out of the Committee and that will come through to the Report stage. I therefore look forward to the outcome of the listening exercise, and hope that it is a genuine listening exercise and that substantial changes will be made to the Bill. The changes that I wish to see are so substantial that they would take the guts out of the Bill.

To the concept of commissioning proposed in the Bill and the idea of handing all that power to one narrow group of clinicians—GPs—there is, despite what the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said about GPs in his area, at best a resigned reluctance and at worst outright hostility about what GPs are being asked to do. I do not go along with the hon. Gentleman’s view that they are keen to get on with it. They are responsible people and responsible professionals; they recognise when they are being asked to do something and they will get on with it, but I must say that they will not do so with any enthusiasm.

Secondly, the substantial elephant in the room is not the risk of privatisation of the NHS, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who is no longer in his place, described it, but the marketisation of the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) put it well: the cherries will be picked by the private sector. Any decisions on commissioning could easily be unscrambled by a process whereby decisions that were intended to try to integrate services could be challenged because they were structured uncompetitively. Those are two fundamental failings in the Bill.

This comes to the heart of what coalitions are about. No one gets their own way, as Labour knows from being in coalition in other places, and it is silly to be childish about that. In a coalition, the parties work together when they agree and seek a compromise where they fail to agree. I would argue that when they cannot come to any kind of agreement or compromise, they should allow Parliament to decide. What I do not like about what is happening is the fact that the Secretary of State is largely implementing this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

NHS Reorganisation

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who made a number of important points about the extent of the reorganisation, quoting Chris Ham of the King’s Fund. Indeed, a number of other authoritative sources point out that these reforms amount to the most significant reorganisation of the NHS since its inception 62 years ago. Therefore, we need to look with great care at the issues that arise as a result of this substantial change. We are talking about the public institution that the majority of people in this country hold most dear, so we have a great responsibility in this House to deal with these issues seriously.

I query the hon. Lady’s final point on the purpose of today’s debate. If the intention was to alienate those who broadly share her and the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis of the Bill, then adopting the device of today’s debate was probably the best way of doing so, so I congratulate them on that. Following the debate in our conference in Saturday, I would say that if Labour Members have a significant interest in the future of the NHS, the most appropriate thing to do would be to try to form a coalition of the people who share concerns about the Bill. Many of the institutions that she and others quoted—the King’s Fund, the BMA, the GMC, the royal colleges and many others—share concerns on the basis of a very objective and dispassionate point of view and could make a significant contribution. That is how we should be doing it, not by using—I am sorry to describe it thus—the playground politics of an Opposition day debate as a means of advancing the issue.

[Angela Smith]

Is the hon. Gentleman indicating that he would be prepared to talk to Labour Front Benchers on meaningful ways of taking this debate forward?

[Andrew George]

I am prepared to talk to anyone who wants to engage constructively in improving the Bill to ensure that it achieves its stated intentions, because I do not think that it will, given the nature of the reorganisation proposed in it. The reason I will not be joining the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Lobby to support the motion is that it is tactically wrong at this stage to engage in such antics. This issue is a great deal too important to be turned into a party political playground game.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State said today that he is prepared to listen and engage. We need to explore every opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue with him, involving all the stakeholders I mentioned, and, indeed, those in the Labour party who want so to engage, to find a way through and to ensure that the genuine concerns about the impact of the Bill are properly scrutinised. Yes, they are being scrutinised in the Bill Committee, but before we get to Report stage in this House, it is important that we create a coalition of the bodies that share these concerns. Rather than inviting them to go out on to Parliament square and wave their placards and so on, it would make a lot of sense to encourage them to engage in greater constructive dialogue than we have succeeded in achieving so far.

[Mr Dorrell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the case he is making is reinforced by the fact that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already moved two amendments to the Bill dealing with the cherry-picking issue and—this was mentioned by the Prime Minister today—price competition. The amendments have been tabled to ensure that the Bill addresses concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Indeed, that is a very encouraging indication of the fact that the Secretary of State is prepared to listen. As far as I am concerned, however, he is not prepared to go far enough in reassuring me on those points, because taking the word “maximum” out of the clauses relating to price competition and the role of Monitor, the market regulator, is still insufficient. We have not got time to debate that today.

There are several issues, through which I shall canter in the few moments I have left, about the Bill’s objectives and what we want to achieve. First, we want to drive patient choice and innovation. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that, but we do not need to demolish the core—or at least the institutional architecture—of the NHS and PCTs, and alienate the majority of clinicians against achieving such innovation and patient choice.

Again, I think we all agree that giving power to communities and patients is highly desirable. However, although GPs will be given responsibility for commissioning services through the consortia, I do not think that they are particularly asking for that. Having spoken to many of them and listened to the national debate, I believe that they are reluctant, or at best resigned to taking on those roles, feeling that they have to follow that course.

If we want decentralisation, why will we end up with the ludicrous centralisation of commissioning NHS dentistry and dispensing? Indeed, every contract for a GP surgery will be centrally commissioned from an NHS commissioning board in Leeds. That is absurd. It does not even achieve what it is claimed that the Bill wants—decentralisation.

Many attempts have been made to argue that the Bill will cut bureaucracy and managers. I am not sure that that will happen. A big focus of today’s debate is the impact of competition, which will be unleashed. Once the private sector has its foot in the door, the genie will be out of the bottle. It is clear that everything, including designated services, in my view, will be open to contest. Although it is claimed that the Bill will result in fewer managers, I think that it is a dream come true for litigators, lawyers and management consultants.

[John Pugh]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

I am afraid that I do not have time.

The idea that the Bill will drive integration and social care is more wishful thinking because there will be less coterminosity between commissioning boards and local authorities under the Government’s proposals for an increased number of commissioning bodies than we have now.

Much rethinking needs to be done, and I hope that Government Front Benchers are listening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State actually understands the situation. It is not true that doctors see patients for only eight minutes; GPs see their patients for the length of time that they feel they should see them. The concept that GPs will have their time taken away from looking after patients to do commissioning is not right, because GPs will employ commissioners with expertise to work with them and do the commissioning for them, so that they can get on with looking after their patients.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

With regard to the admin load of GPs, the Government correctly want to have better integration of health and social care. Why, therefore, are they creating GP consortia that are less coterminous with local authority boundaries than the existing primary care trusts? How will that help to deliver a better integrated health and social care system?

[Mr Burns]

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend in so far as that is not automatically or necessarily the case. The geographical area of a consortium will be determined by what is most appropriate in the local area.

Maternity Services

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stuart]

I have come across SANDS. The Heart of England trust did some work, which I will consider later, whereby it looked at midwives’ case load and found it to be far higher than required. Incidents are spread across an area and each of us probably sees only one or two cases occasionally. The real problem comes when we look across the city and the west midlands. We should pay tribute to SANDS and its work and to the bereavement nurses it has now put in hospitals. They are in east Birmingham and in my patch. However, that is not good enough.

Coming back to the 25 cases, in four cases of substandard care, different management would not have made a difference. In five cases, it might have made a difference to the outcome, but in 16 cases, different management would reasonably have been expected to make a difference to the outcome. In other words, 84% of the deaths were considered potentially avoidable. The overall conclusion that the report reached looking at the west midlands was that many deaths were avoidable and need to be avoided. That is why we need to discuss this report and decide what to do about that.

This is not a particular west midlands problem; it is just that the west midlands has been the first to take an honest look.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I raised the issue of the Perinatal Institute in Birmingham in a debate I led on maternity and midwifery on 2 May 2007. I spoke to Professor Jason Gadosi before and after that debate. What he said then, nearly four years ago, was precisely what he appears to be saying now: there has been a failure fully to monitor and interrogate what went on and to draw conclusions that might better inform the improved care, and avoid the perinatal mortality levels that still exist.

[Ms Stuart]

That leads me to my next point. We have clearly not come up with systems in the NHS that allow us to learn properly from mistakes when things go wrong. I fully accept that we have the NHS Litigation Authority, and that the NHS insures itself. We try to deal with negligence effectively and efficiently. However, there is still a mentality of institutions, when something goes wrong, closing in on themselves. I wonder whether we should look at the way the aviation industry deals with accidents. Fault is not allocated; the facts are looked at, and the real outcome is what to do as a result of the problem. Rather than understanding the errors that have gone further and further, we should consider what is to be done as a result.

Going through newspaper cuttings, I found one over Christmas about Good Hope hospital. There was a very unfortunate incident when a lady who had miscarried was left for four hours in sight of other patients. She complained to the hospital, which simply apologised and said it hoped to do better. Hoping to do better simply has not done us any good, if that experience is anything to go by.

It is not clear to me who has responsibility for this matter. In the current structure we have PCTs and strategic health authorities, where at least theoretically we could allocate responsibility. In the new NHS, who will do that? I will return to that point.

We need national maternity data sets that are much more standardised and allow us to make us comparisons across the country. That is not a question of money. Given that we are told that the NHS is one area that is ring-fenced, there is much we can do within existing provision.

I now come to the promise that the right hon. Member for Witney made during the election campaign. We all know what happens during elections; not keeping election promises is not particularly new. However, let us look at what he said in January 2010. Maternity and childbirth is an immensely emotive subject. It is not an illness; it is one of the most joyful events in life. In the majority of cases, a healthy baby is born and we try to keep the medics out of the process as much as possible. When politicians go into election campaigns and talk about maternity services—particularly when they do so in The Sun—it is a pretty toxic mix. The right hon. Member for Witney went to a maternity unit and said:

“Having a baby might be the most natural thing in the world.”

Fine, I agree with him. He continued:

“Every parent wants…to give birth in a relaxed local setting, where they get the personal attention they need. So, why isn’t that happening? It’s because after a decade of constant reorganisation, Labour are giving us bigger and bigger baby factories where mums can feel neglected and midwives are stretched to breaking point.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stuart]

I will respond to that point before returning to my favourite subject of the Prime Minister’s promises. The hon. Lady is right: there is always a huge tension between local and more centralised delivery. My first Adjournment debate in this Chamber as a junior Minister was about the closure of the William Courtauld maternity unit in Braintree in Essex. It had about 300 deliveries, and there was always a tension about whether services should be offered there or in Colchester. We need both. However, when campaigning to keep local maternity units, we should note that the Royal College of Nursing looked at changes in maternity care. It stated that, apart from the rise in numbers, there are more older mothers with higher rates of complications, and there is a higher rate of multiple births and more obese women who are less fit for pregnancy. More women survive serious childhood illness and go on to have children, and they need extra care during pregnancy and childbirth. There are also increasing rates of intervention.

Therefore, apart from social and ethnic diversity, some births are becoming increasingly complicated. If the hon. Lady were to go to the Birmingham women’s hospital, where women who have had heart transplants give birth, she would see that a safe delivery might require not only the expertise of the women’s hospital, but that of the Queen Elizabeth hospital next door. There is always a natural tension between localism and the best care. The real answer is that we need both.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady makes a balanced case. However, the previous Government also promised thousands more midwives and failed to deliver on that. Is there is a general cross-party agreement that the choice of a home birth should be available, where that is a precautionary safe option and as far as it is possible to predict what is likely to happen during birth? Under such circumstances, two midwives are needed on site. In the “baby factories” that were mentioned earlier, the efficiencies that can be achieved are greater. If more home births are to be serviced and supported, even more midwives will be required.

[Ms Stuart]

They will indeed. I may risk alienating my own party a little here. Home birth is one of those nice, idyllic and romantic ideas, but, frankly, when I had my children I would rather have had a small cottage hospital with a safe delivery, where I left for home after 24 hours, knowing that if I needed care it was on hand. Home births are probably not as romantic as people think they are.

Let us return to whether the Prime Minister meant what he said. He spoke of an increase in the number of midwives of 3,000. When the Royal College of Nursing challenged the Government, an unnamed Conservative spokesman said:

“There must of course be enough midwives to meet the demands arising from the number of births. The commitment to 3,000 midwives made in Opposition was dependent on the birth rate increasing as it has done in the recent past. It was not in the coalition agreement because predictions now suggest the birth rate will be stable over the next few years.”

Let us analyse the words

“enough midwives to meet the demands”.

We all agree with that. However, if one looks at the planning tool, Birthrate Plus, which estimates how many midwives are needed, and calculates the number nationwide, when that promise was made, according to that tool, there was already a shortage of 4,765 midwives. Even the promise of 3,000 fell short and far more midwives were needed.

The spokesman said that the commitment made in opposition depended on the birth rate increasing. However, nothing was said about that in the article in The Sun. Furthermore, if we look at the only figures that were available at the time the promise was made, they did not suggest any such thing—indeed, they suggested the opposite. The promise is not in the coalition agreement, but the newest figures were not available until long after that agreement. Therefore, there is no proper excuse. It is not about money, and the birth rates that were predicted were not happening. The figures were not available, and I would like to hear why that promise was not in the coalition agreement. It does not stack up.

I can conclude only that when the Prime Minister made that statement, he did not mean it. It is callous to do such things. Maternity and childbirth are sensitive issues, and if something specific is promised during an election campaign, that promise should be kept. I shall return to maternity networks later.

I am not alone in this view—I am not making it up. In November last year, the country’s leading midwife, Cathy Warwick, accused the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary of risking the safety of mothers and babies by backtracking on their pledges to hire more NHS midwives. She said that she was

“extremely disappointed...Both coalition parties supported a commitment to more midwives, now they have apparently changed their minds, and yet the economic situation was well-known before the election.”

Not only was the economic situation well known, but NHS funding is ring-fenced. The money argument does not stack up. She went on to say that she had encountered a “deafening silence” from the Government when she asked whether they intended to honour the pledge. That is a broken promise.

Let us look at where we should go from here. If the record shows that figures on maternity have not improved for 20 years, we need to make some progress. There is a strong association between deprivation and stillbirth as well as infant mortality. The index of multiple deprivation for the west midlands between 1997 and 2007 gives an overall score of 29.9. In Sutton Four Oaks—Sutton Coldfield, the royal borough, still has not quite come to terms with being part of Birmingham—the score was 10.5. Washwood Heath, which I think has the highest unemployment in the country, has a score of 65.1. In my constituency, the area of Bartley Green has a score of 40.3, while in Harborne it is 24.7. However, after the slight boundary reviews that remove the Welsh House Farm estate from Harborne, I expect that figure to be higher. There is a real link between deprivation and stillbirths and infant mortality. Those areas need far greater numbers of midwives to deal with the case load.

That highlights the fact that reducing perinatal and infant mortality is part of public health. That cannot be addressed just at GP level, and it requires a far wider view. As we still do not have national standards for collecting data, we are not even able to say to pregnant women how well the service is doing. That is why the Prime Minister’s promises matter. If we want to create the big society, and if we are all in this together, we need to strengthen commissioning, which needs to go far wider than the current structure. The current commissioning is weak, and from what I heard last night, it will only weaken further. We do not even know how well we are doing, and we are now talking about GP-led commissioning—leaving it to the professionals.

In yesterday’s edition of The Times, the Prime Minister said, “The NHS will sicken unless we modernise”. For the moment, I will leave the use of English—“the NHS will sicken”—to others to comment on. The Prime Minister goes on to say that he wants to debunk five myths. He says:

“The fifth and final myth is the most important: the suggestion that patient care will suffer. The opposite is true. Our changes draw on some simple logic: that professionals, not managers or politicians, are best placed to understand the needs of patients. Couple that professional freedom for doctors and nurses with choice and transparency for the patient, and you get a mix that will expose poor performance and drive standards up.”

Will it really? What if the professionals are not doing a proper job? If we do not have the nationwide data that allow us to tell them whether they are doing a good job, it is not only the professionals who are not aware of whether they are doing a good job by comparison. The patient will not know that, either, and they will take the care that they get. How many of us have had feedback relating to hospitals in which the hospital’s performance was based on whether people thought that the food was any good? Although that is important, it tells us little about clinical standards. I am sure that the parents of those babies who died where better care would have made a difference would not have been aware of that, because what are the comparisons?

[Andrew George]

I do not want us to repeat yesterday’s debate on the Health and Social Care Bill. I took part in that debate, and my position on that Bill is reasonably well known. However, on the substance of the case that the hon. Lady is advancing, I fear that if we are going to be trading promises made by the previous Government on maternity care that were not delivered and similar promises made by a party leader that may or may not be delivered, we will not get what I hoped that we would get from this debate, which is a recognition that midwifery is under-resourced and that we should all be working together to acknowledge that we are putting a lot at risk. That includes the fact that we have high levels of litigation. If the bill of £1.4 billion that was apparently expended last year in meeting the costs of litigation in obstetrics were brought down, one could invest in the very services where such high levels of litigation arise.

[Ms Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I have said that one of the things that we need to move to is much more serious consideration of no-fault investigations where something has gone wrong.

I return to the point that areas of higher deprivation that have high infant mortality rates require much higher numbers of midwives than areas of lower deprivation. There is no getting away from that. I am rather sad that the Perinatal Institute’s report on community midwives is not ready for publication yet, but I will not be surprised if it finds that the case load of the majority of community midwives is too high and that they regularly work more hours than they are contracted to do. There are no national standards on the accepted case load for a midwife, but professional opinion is that the figure is about 110. The Heart of Birmingham Teaching primary care trust has found that case loads are about 150.

The question is what the right figure is in areas of deprivation. Strictly speaking, Bellevue is in the Edgbaston constituency, but it borders Ladywood. A two-year study there looked at case loads of 60 to 70. The sample was too small, but there is a link between deprivation and infant mortality, and deprived areas therefore require higher levels of midwife input than other areas, which cannot be picked up by GP commissioning. In the case of the west midlands, it certainly requires a Birmingham-wide view, if not a west midlands-wide approach to commissioning, because it is a public health function as much as anything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady is being extremely patient in allowing me to intervene. I want to support the point that she is making. The anecdotal information that I have been picking up from midwives is that a high number are, at the pinnacle of their career, retiring as a result of stress, because of the pressure placed on them. There are unreasonable expectations of them in the case load that they are expected to undertake. Those are some of the best people, who are able to contribute the most to their local community and to the health service, yet we are losing them from the service as a result of poor staff management and the fact that they are expected to work under tremendous stress.

[Ms Stuart]

Indeed. If we look at the findings of the work force assessment conducted by the Royal College of Midwives, we see that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The issue is not only that we are short of midwives, but that many midwives leave early or are coming up to retirement, which is really worrying. There is no doubt that we need to strengthen the work force.

I want to bring all the strands together. We are told that the new health service will give the patient the say, and we are trusting the professionals to know better than the politicians and the managers. My argument is that, in some areas, the professionals themselves clearly do not know how well they are doing, and it is about time that they did—when they find out, they need to put in place mechanisms to put things right. Unless we have standardised maternity data that allow us to make comparisons across the country, the professionals, even if they are willing to do so, will not be able to respond.

The third point is that patient choice sounds really good, but in some areas of deprivation—we have them in Birmingham—the question of choice is something from fantasy land. People just want decent services. To say to them that they are driving up choice is an absolutely ridiculous aspiration. Even if all the other things were to happen, midwives on the ground are so utterly overworked that they would have very little time to drive forward the improvements that would be made.

I can see that the Prime Minister’s vision of the new NHS will work perfectly well in Sutton Coldfield and in parts of Solihull, but not all of it. However, it will not work well in our big cities, where we need far stronger, coherent commissioning. I have four questions that I want the Minister to answer. First, the report from the west midlands is exceedingly important. What steps will she take to ensure not only that there is data gathering but that the lessons will continue to be learned not only in the west midlands, but throughout the rest of the country? I am referring to standardised data gathering and standardised analysis, so that we can get a true picture of how well the service is doing and so that we reach a position in which, when we ask how well we are doing, the professionals can answer that.

On my second question, I am fully aware that it takes x years to train nurses, midwives, doctors and consultants, and we have to start down the path of training them at some stage. Will the Minister therefore tell us whether the promise of 3,000 midwives was contingent on birth rates? If it was, can we say that it is no longer on the table? If it is on the table, what steps are being taken to start training and recruiting those midwives, on top of retaining the current ones?

My third question is about the Prime Minister’s second promise in the article in The Sun, which related to maternity networks. What are they? Where are they? Will the Minister spell that out precisely? She looks rather surprised, but when I expressed my surprise about these new maternity networks and wondered exactly what they were, the professionals came to me and said, “It would be really helpful if the Minister could spell out during the debate precisely what these networks are and where they are.” If I am being accused of ignorance, I plead that I am not alone in my ignorance.

My final question is the one that ultimately troubles me most. We are breaking up the units in the health service and moving down to GP commissioning—I have to say that I have far less faith in the universal wisdom of GPs, as opposed to other medical professionals—so how will everything hang together? There are pretty good GP groups in south Birmingham, and they will probably make the new arrangements work, as will some of the groups in other parts. However, in the areas with the highest deprivation and need, where people will be least able to exercise choice or make their demands known, I simply cannot see GP commissioning delivering for people on the ground.

Whose responsibility will it be to ensure equity in maternity care across regions? At one stage, there were thoughts that maternity commissioning should still be a national service, like the specialist commissioning services, but I gather that that is no longer the case. A fair number of MPs from Birmingham and the west midlands are present, so will the Minister explain which body will ensure in those areas that the findings in the Perinatal Institute’s report and the consequent actions are brought together and rolled out so that we receive better care?

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate. Maternity services are an extremely emotive issue. When my daughter, Alexis, was born at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, it was the most emotional day of my life. As a non-smoker, I smoked two packets of cigarettes that day.

I pay tribute to the hospital’s staff, whom I found extraordinarily professional, hard-working and dedicated. However, there has been a lack of funding for maternity services in Shropshire hospitals over the past 13 years. The hon. Lady talked about broken promises, and I want to highlight my concerns about the huge inequality in funding for maternity services around the United Kingdom. I sometimes go to Birmingham and I see the hospitals there, and there are huge differences between the quality of the buildings, equipment and resources in Birmingham and the quality of those in Shrewsbury and rural shire counties.

The Royal Shrewsbury hospital covers not only Shrewsbury and the whole of Shropshire, but the whole of mid-Wales, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) will have the chance to explain the benefits of the maternity services for his constituents. The population of Shropshire and mid-Wales is not that much smaller than the population of Birmingham. Yes, the populations of those areas, even when combined, are smaller than that of Birmingham, but not by much. However, we have only two hospitals to cover our whole area. I am not sure how many hospitals there are in Birmingham. The hon. Lady said that there was a hospital for women’s services in Birmingham. My goodness, I wish we could have a hospital dedicated to women’s services covering my county and the whole of mid-Wales. I will find out how many hospitals there are in Birmingham, but I want to stress that my county lacks facilities.

As a result of the debate, I am also going to research the outcomes in Shropshire and mid-Wales versus those in Birmingham and to look at the resources that both receive. From all the league tables I have seen, many of the outcomes in maternity services are better in Shropshire than they are in Birmingham. Why is Shropshire so far ahead of Birmingham in the league table when it gets a fraction of the resources? The hon. Lady seemed to imply that greater resources needed to be provided, but I would say that we need to learn from Shropshire how it manages to provide such excellent maternity services when it receives such limited funding compared with Birmingham. When I have done that research, I will send it to the Minister.

During the 13 years of the previous Labour Administration—I briefed the Minister on this last night—there was a chronic lack of funding. I am not embarrassed to say that I think the previous Government deliberately targeted inner-city Labour areas with investment and deliberately stripped it from rural counties, which are predominantly Tory. That was done in a political way to put investment into Labour heartlands, and although the hon. Lady won her seat because she is an assiduous and hard-working MP, many other Labour MPs were re-elected because of that direct channelling of resources into Labour inner-city areas at the expense of rural shire counties.

As a result of that chronic lack of funding for Shropshire, a consultation is under way on proposals for a mass reconfiguration of maternity services. That will see in-patient children’s services and consultant maternity services move from Shrewsbury to Telford. My constituents expressed extreme concern about that at a public meeting on Sunday, as they have over the past few weeks. In the six years that I have been an MP, I have never received as many e-mails, telephone calls and letters from concerned parents, clinicians and GPs as I have over these reconfiguration proposals—there is a lot of concern.

I should stress that I expect any proposals put forward by local hospitals and primary care trusts robustly to meet the stringent tests set out by the Secretary of State for Health in relation to support from GP commissioners, public and patient engagement, clinical evidence and patient choice. If those stringent criteria are not met, I very much hope and expect my local council’s overview and scrutiny committee to refer the proposals to the Secretary of State, in anticipation of their being reviewed by an independent reconfiguration panel.

Today, I will write personally to all the GPs in Shropshire to find out their views about the reconfiguration proposals for maternity services, rather than being told by the PCT or the chief executive that GPs are in favour of them. If they are against the plans, I will share that information with the Minister, and I hope she will support me in challenging them.

Yesterday, I had a meeting with the deputy general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, Louise Silverton, who has promised to help me get the Royal College of Midwives involved. I will also write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to find out its views. I have spoken to the Minister, who has kindly agreed to meet me and a delegation of concerned constituents so that we can raise these issues with her.

I do not want to speak for too long, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire will get a chance to speak. I would not wish a reconfiguration of maternity services on my worst enemy. It is turning my hair grey and I am extremely upset about it. I am cognisant of the views of my constituents and I want to stress that they are very concerned at the prospect of Shrewsbury losing maternity services. People expect maternity services to be ever closer to them, not further away. Our services cover the largest landlocked county in the United Kingdom, with a vast rural expanse, as well as the whole population of mid-Wales, and we hope and expect that maternity services will stay in Shrewsbury and not be moved to the extreme east of the county, to Telford.

[Andrew George]

I do not want to intrude on concerns about reconfiguration in Shropshire. However, on the basis of yesterday’s debate, the Government’s intentions and the principle of “No decision about me, without me”—as well as the intention, at least, under the proposed Government health reforms, that many decisions will in future be made by communities working through their health and well-being boards with the GP commissioning consortia, and with the political support of the Government—presumably the community and GPs in Shropshire have a greater say in the present culture than they might have in the past. I should have thought that my hon. Friend might be reassured by that and would not necessarily need to get Ministers involved in the dispute.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes, I concur with a lot of what my hon. Friend has said. However, I listen to members of the public, because I am directly accountable to them as their Member of Parliament, and often my voting and other decisions are affected by them. There is a bond of accountability between each one of us and our constituents. Unfortunately, chief executives and managers of trusts and PCTs do not necessarily have that bond of accountability. They are here one minute and gone the next. That is the problem. Many of my constituents are trying to engage in the consultation process and put questions directly to the PCT and chief executive, but they are not getting answers. I should like the Minister to be aware of that. If the Government are putting forward public and patient engagement as a stringent criterion of whether a reconfiguration of service should go ahead, it is important that the Secretary of State should have confidence that that aspect of the process has been fully and robustly carried out. My understanding is that the only method of referral is by the council’s local overview and scrutiny committee, but if the council is not minded to do it, what can local people who still have concerns do?

I have been approached about extraordinarily emotive cases, involving women who have major issues to do with maternity and paediatric services. They are very emotional about the prospect of those services being moved away from their community. I want them to be heard.

Health and Social Care Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No. I am going to make some progress.

The Labour party, when in government, pioneered patient choice; Labour said, “We must have patient choice.” I remember John Reid, when he was a Member, saying that the articulate and the well-off negotiated their way through the health service, and that he wanted to give choice to everybody in the health service. He was right. The social attitudes survey in 2009 found that more than 95% of people felt that they should have more choice, but that fewer than half of patients actually experienced it. The Labour party started down the road of extending choice; we will complete that journey.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On patient choice in health service design, is the Secretary of State aware that in Cornwall the primary care trust has engaged in the transfer of community hospitals and services without adequate public consultation and at breakneck speed? If “no decision about me, without me” is to apply to service design and patient involvement, is he prepared to intervene to ensure that the public are involved in such important decisions?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I have not previously been asked to comment on the matter, nor have I received information about it, but from my visits to Cornwall I entirely endorse his view about the importance of community hospitals in accessing services. He will see that, in the Bill, a specific duty is placed on the commissioning board and each commissioning consortium to reduce inequalities in access to health care. He will see also that, through the Bill, we will strengthen accountability where major service change takes place, because it will require not only the agreement of the commissioning consortium, representing as it were the professional view, but the endorsement of the health and wellbeing board, which includes direct, local, democratic accountability. Points have been made about what was in manifestos, but the Liberal Democrat manifesto was very clear about the need for democratic accountability in health service commissioning—and so there will be.

Let me return to the point, because the previous Government also went down the route of practice-based commissioning. It was their policy, but, as the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said, many GPs felt that

“they didn’t always get the power, responsibility and resources they might have wanted.”

Well, now they will, and we will give it to them.

On our definition of quality, Opposition Members say “quality matters”. It does, and it was under the Labour Government that Ara Darzi pioneered the thought that quality must be at the heart and an organising principle of the health service. It is we now who are going to make that happen. We are publishing quality standards. We are putting into this legislation a duty to improve quality that extends to all the organisations that commission and provide NHS services.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The problem for PCTs, and the managers and staff who work in them, is that they are being asked to do several things at the same time: to make unprecedented efficiencies at a time when the NHS is being put through its tightest financial squeeze in history; to axe its own jobs; and to guide the reorganisation and ensure that it can take place. That is a tough challenge for anyone. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep on his local PCT’s case.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I would accept his criticisms more openly—I think—were he prepared to acknowledge that the previous Labour Government set up independent treatment centres and rigged the market to hand over 15% of all elective operations in an area such as mine to an independent company that they more or less set up themselves, and which undermined the local acute trust and services with changes that patients had not asked for. That was forced on the PCT and not something for which it asked. It was a rigged market. Would he like to apologise to the House for the practices of the previous Labour Government?

[John Healey]

I am more interested in what we will be facing in future. I am more interested in the claim by the Health Secretary that there will not be, as he describes it, a rigged market in future, but a level playing field for all providers. However, my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Well, we will see. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Health, and he follows such matters closely. I urge him to read page 42 onwards of the impact assessment, because there he will see the preparations for being able to pay for the sort of thing that he criticises in the health service.

As the hon. Gentleman gives me this opportunity, let me say to him and his Lib Dem colleagues that what we are facing is clearly Conservative health policy, not coalition health policy, and certainly not Lib Dem health policy. The main evidence of any influence of Lib Dem ideas on health policy in the coalition agreement was the commitment to

“ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust”.

The Bill abolishes PCTs. The Lib Dem policy priority before the election was to ensure that local people had more control over their health services. The Bill places sweeping powers in the hands of a new national quango—the national commissioning board—and a new national economic regulator, which is charged with enforcing competition, to open up all parts of the NHS to private health companies. The Lib Dems’ principal concern was to strengthen local and public accountability of health services, but the Bill seriously restricts openness, scrutiny and accountability to both the public and Parliament. It will lead to an NHS in which “commercial in confidence” is stamped on many of the most important decisions that are taken. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman and his Lib Dem colleagues: this is not your policy, but it is being done in your name. The public will hold you—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barron]

I am not saying that savings should not be made. Indeed, the Select Committee in the last Parliament took evidence from the chief executive of the NHS on that particular point. The case that I make is about the type of reorganisation. Not only has nobody in the public sector ever been able to get 4% a year in savings, but nobody in the private sector has, in the time scale being predicted now. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is rubbish—it is not rubbish at all. He should go and talk to his advisers about what happens in the real world, as opposed to the world that has appeared since July last year.

I would like to say something in defence of managers. This Government have been bashing managers in the NHS every week they have been in office, and did so for many months before they got there. How do they think we got waiting lists for things such as new knee and hip joints down from years to months, and even weeks, in areas such as mine? I will tell them. It was not done by taking the surgeons out of theatres to do the administration, but by putting people in to do the administration so that the surgeons could spend more time in theatres seeing more patients. That is the real truth. The management -bashing that has been taking place of people inside the NHS might be popular on the ground, but let me say this to the Government: if they take those managers out and we go back to the waiting lists and waiting times of five or six years ago, they will see where popularity lies.

[Andrew George]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Barron]

No, I will not; I have given way twice. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.

The King’s Fund, which the Secretary of State mentioned, supports some parts of the Bill. Indeed, I support a lot of its aims, but I do not support the reorganisation and upheaval that it will create inside the NHS. That is why I will vote against it. The King’s Fund says:

“The Bill abolishes the Health Protection Agency, places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote public health, and transfers responsibility for public health to local authorities.”

I agree with that. However, the Bill does not give me any confidence that GP consortia will have responsibility for the health of the population they cover.

Anybody looking at the history of public health in this country should recognise that we cannot run it on the basis of just handing it over to local government. The issues are far wider than that. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but people should look at the answers to questions that I got a week or so ago about what has happened to smoking cessation since this Government took over. Rates of smoking cessation have plummeted because of the advertising and promotion that is permitted. About 50% of health inequalities are created by smoking. The Government have taken their foot off the accelerator on the main thing that we should be doing to address public health inequalities, and they will suffer at the polls because of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) and his encyclopaedic questions. I am sure that, from his many years as a Minister, he knows the kind of comprehensive answers that he would like to receive from Ministers. Indeed, I should be interested in some of those answers, so I congratulate him on asking those questions.

Perhaps I should inject a short note of levity into what has been a serious debate so far. I do not have the timing or skills of the late, great Tommy Cooper, but he once told a joke that goes roughly along these lines. A patient runs into a doctor’s surgery and says, “Doctor, doctor, I think I’ve broken my arm. Can you mend it?” The doctor looks at the arm and says, “Yes, I think I can mend it.” Then, the patient says, “Doctor, doctor, will I be able to play the piano?” And the doctor looks carefully at the arm again and says, “Yes, I’m sure that you will be able to play the piano.” To which the patient says, “That’s great. I’ve always wanted to play the piano.”

Doctors often use that joke to emphasise the unrealistic expectations that people have of them, and I have come to the conclusion that there are some unrealistic expectations in the Bill. It is well intentioned and not, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and others have argued, generated out of malice, dogma or—clearly—ineptitude, but Ministers have perhaps allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them. There can be no disagreement with the principles that underpin the Bill, in particular greater clinical and patient involvement and driving the quality of innovation, albeit through a number of, admittedly, rather debatable measures. Those are pretty unarguable “motherhood and apple pie” principles that ought to underpin such legislation, but many people are concerned about its timing, when all parties agree that the NHS faces one of its biggest ever challenges: the biggest savings it has been asked to make in its 62-year history. At the same time, however, I see the measures as the biggest shake-up of the NHS in its 62-year history. The Bill is well intentioned, but for it to proceed and not damage the NHS it needs further major surgery in Committee before it returns to the Chamber for Report and Third Reading.

We need to look at reforming the reforms themselves as part of a constructive approach to engagement. It is not that PCTs are the be-all and end-all of future health service delivery; far from it. No one will die in a ditch to defend them, but, given the institutional architecture that they have provided, after many years of coalescing around and amalgamating the primary care groups that were their heritage, we should establish the default position of assuming that we stick to that coterminosity and structure and then graft on wider clinical involvement. Many GPs in my constituency clearly tell me that they are going ahead with the measures before us more out of resignation than enthusiasm for solely GP-led clinical involvement in commissioning. A lot of them are telling me clearly that they want wider clinical engagement. If there are already 141 pathfinders covering just half the population of this country, at the very least there will be somewhere in the region of 300—that is, 300 chief executives against 152. There is a risk that that will generate a great deal more bureaucracy than exists at present in the PCTs.

I am not persuaded by the level of democratic accountability of the wellbeing boards. Monitor will set a maximum tariff and then promote competition, which could easily put quality at risk for the sake of price. That view is shared by many authoritative bodies.

Many questions still need to be addressed—protecting the integration of services, ensuring the accountability of Monitor and looking at the power of the NHS commissioning board. For those reasons, and a number of others that I do not have time to explain, I cannot support the Government this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend talks about the role of GPs in cutting costs. I would be interested to hear whether, from her experience, she believes that the introduction of price competition—in which a maximum tariff would be set, below which there could be competition —will be helpful, or does she believe, as many authorities and other bodies do, that it is likely to put quality at risk?

[Dr Wollaston]

I am very confident, because I have discussed that question with the Secretary of State, who has assured me that the reforms are about competition not on price, but on quality. All doctors know that if they get it right the first time, they provide not only better care, but better value care.

GPs and PCTs throughout Devon are rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the job in hand, but to deliver the undoubted benefits of integrated care, they need to be able to work closely with colleagues in hospital, as well as with people in the community, to design those logical pathways. As I just mentioned, the Secretary of State has reassured me on the question of price versus quality competition, but it would help to spell out explicitly in the Bill that that will be protected. Professionals are understandably scared, and I hope the Minister will make the position absolutely clear in his winding-up speech.

Commissioners will not feel liberated if they are liberated from the Secretary of State but shackled to Monitor. Fundamental to the outcome of the reforms will be the powers of Monitor. I should like those powers to be carefully constrained in the Bill, so that it does not take on an unintended role. Focusing on quality and not on cost would help to bring all the professionals back into thinking that this is a positive step forward, because that remains a concern.

NHS Reorganisation

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I have read David Nicholson’s transcripts, and he was indeed talking about £15 billion to £20 billion of efficiency savings, which were not achieved, as the Secretary of State said, but planned. That is a big test for the NHS, and it will be more difficult because of his plans for reorganisation, which I will come to.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As I was at the evidence session, I can confirm that Sir David Nicholson was clearly talking about the challenging £15 billion to £20 billion savings, which I would have thought the whole House approved of and agreed should be achieved. But the right hon. Gentleman was right to say that Sir David was also talking about their being achieved in the context of the proposed changes in the White Paper.

[John Healey]

Of course Sir David was talking about the two together, because the Select Committee was understandably probing both matters. In the quote that I gave, he was talking about the significant efficiency savings required of the health service at this time of an unprecedented financial squeeze. Many would say that that is the toughest financial test in the NHS’s history.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The real question is why the right hon. Gentleman, if he had these plans, did not tell the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister when they were writing the coalition agreement what he wanted to do on funding, on reorganisation and on the role of primary care trusts. Why did he allow his Government to make these pledges to the British public in May and then break their promises two months later in the White Paper? Whatever the boss of Tribal health care says about the private health care companies, he described the White Paper as

“the denationalisation of healthcare services”.

He went on to say that

“this white paper could result in the biggest transfer of employment out of the public sector since the significant reforms seen in the 1980s.”

This is not what people expected when they heard the Prime Minister tell the Conservative conference last month that the NHS would be protected.

[Andrew George]

It is incontrovertible that the White Paper contradicts the coalition agreement in respect of top-down reorganisation, but I think we would accept the right hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of top-down manipulation of local services a great deal more if he were prepared to accept that the previous Government failed in their attempt to reorganise through independent treatment centres or alternative providers of medical services which were massively expensive and did not necessarily provide better services on the ground. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that the previous Government failed in that regard?

[John Healey]

The treatment centres, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, helped contribute to bringing waiting times down to 18 weeks and helped to say to the British public, “Whatever treatment you need in hospital, you will not have to wait more than 18 weeks for it.” That was a consistent universal promise that we were able to make to patients as a guarantee for the future. That has now been ripped up, and we can see the result as waiting times and waiting lists lengthen. As I said at the start of my speech, my fear is that during this period of Tory leadership, we will see the NHS going backwards.

As for the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), I understand his problem. He is a Liberal Democrat and I have to say that this health policy bears very little of the Liberal Democrat imprint. The one part of the Liberal health manifesto that they managed to get into the coalition agreement was this:

“We will ensure there is a stronger voice for patients locally through… elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust”.

Within two months, of course, that was not even worth the coalition agreement paper it was written on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman has just taken to heart the old saying that the job of the Opposition is to oppose. That is all he is doing: he is simply opposing. Nothing in his motion states positively what should be done, whether that is supporting NHS staff or listening to patients and giving them the shared decision making opportunity that is so essential. While opposing the reforms that we in the coalition Government are introducing, he seems to have ignored the simple fact that those reforms, in truth, represent the coherent consistent working out, in practice, of policies that were initiated, but never properly implemented, by the Government of whom he was a member. They are not revolutionary, as he has called them.

[Andrew George]

As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said earlier, the seventh point in the coalition agreement begins with the words:

“We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust…The remainder of the PCT’s board will be appointed by the relevant local authority or authorities”.

Was the Secretary of State consulted before those words were included in the agreement? If he was, what changed his mind between the drawing up of the agreement and the White Paper?

[Mr Lansley]

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that we in the coalition Government collectively took the sensible view that form must follow function. If we arrived at a point at which people were being elected to primary care trusts which themselves no longer had a substantive role to play, because public health was rightly being transferred to local authorities—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, as I was coming on to deal with the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). We are all here to say, rightly, that we want the best from our NHS—dedication from our staff of professionals and creativity from front-line staff. Both the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about that, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the review of top-up tariffs started under Labour. [Hon. Members: “So what?”] Yes, it was in the NHS operating framework under Labour. We will complete that review and we are engaged constructively with the foundation trusts, but I think the right hon. Gentleman should have a conversation with his own Front-Bench team before he attacks the Government Front-Bench team.

Our proposals build on reforms such as practice-based commissioning, patient choice, foundation trusts, tariffs and social enterprise, and they hold true to the founding principles of the NHS—that it is free at the point of delivery, and not based on ability to pay.

Freeing front-line staff from the tyranny of process targets is another issue. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) was right to talk about the need to build on the knowledge of general practices and help them to shape services to fit local need and deliver quality outcomes.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about health inequalities and how they had widened in her constituency under Labour. That is why the Government are forging new relationships between the NHS and local government, making common cause on public health so that we can see it not only as a matter of medical health but as part of a far wider attack on the determinants of ill health in the first place. That makes local government entirely the right place to start.

We must ensure that collaboration takes place. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) talked about collaboration between health and social care becoming the norm rather than the exception, as it is today. We need to increase local accountability for health care decision making. Yes, we also need to empower patients and provide more choice and more control. Through HealthWatch, a champion for patients and service users, we should make sure that the seldom heard, too, are heard in decision making.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend rightly makes much of the need to stop the top-down reorganisations of the past and to emphasise the importance of having patient-centred structures. In that light, if a local area preferred to graft in clinical engagement in the management of the existing PCT and greater patient involvement in the structure, would he accept that as an alternative to the sort of top-down reorganisation that the Government currently propose?

[Paul Burstow]

It will be very much up to the consortiums to decide how to configure their governance. What we have said is that this is about the devolution of power. My hon. Friend was not against the devolution of power to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, yet this is about the same thing—shifting power away from this Front Bench and Whitehall and putting it back into the hands of patients and clinicians. Those clinicians will be engaged in commissioning, as we need them to be.

Much has been made of accountability. Under Labour, the NHS lacked it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) really should reflect more on what was done under Labour, because there was a huge democratic deficit. We will have greater transparency and, through our new council health and well-being boards, genuine democratic accountability.

In the Labour motion before us today, it is wrongly claimed that the NHS has not been protected and that promises have been broken. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to the 1950s, but I would refer her to the 1970s, when Labour was busily cutting back—

NHS White Paper

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

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

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

In seeking to reassure the House that this is not the top-down reorganisation that the coalition agreement derided, would my right hon. colleague reassure my constituents, who are quite excited by the idea of more patient and local authority involvement in local decision making, that where the primary care trusts in which they are going to be appointed will be abolished, there will be more GP commissioning groups than PCTs at the end of the process?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The number of GP-commissioning consortiums will be determined not least by GPs themselves, deciding what makes sense in their locality. He and his Cornish colleagues have often been frustrated by the way in which a top-down bureaucracy has sought to dictate to the people of Cornwall, often in specific localities, at a considerable distance from their hospital services, what services should be provided locally in places such as Hayle and Penzance. He and his constituents can be really comforted by the thought that their clinical advisers and general practitioners in local consortiums can in future make those decisions about their services.

NHS (Cornwall)

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am delighted to have this opportunity of welcoming the publication today of the coalition Government’s health White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”. It received a warm welcome in Cornwall this evening during the evening news on the BBC, with support from patient groups and GPs. I believe that making the NHS more accountable to patients and freeing staff from excessive bureaucracy and top-down control will drive up quality of care and outcomes for patients. I also welcome the measured pace of change and the Government’s desire to engage in a wide range of consultations to get the detail of the proposals working for the benefit of patients.

This evening, I would like to describe the current situation and direction of travel of the NHS in Cornwall, and to raise one important aspect outlined in “Liberating the NHS” today: assuring the continued improvement in quality of care in Cornwall. In addition to the ambulance service, we have three organisations that commission or provide care for people in Cornwall: the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, the Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, and the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly primary care trust. There have been significant problems with some aspects of the quality of care provided by those organisations, but over the past three to four years improvements have been made. Significant challenges remain, and it is essential that momentum be maintained in the further improvement from ratings of “adequate” and “fair” to “good”, and then sustained at that level.

The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust annual health check ratings demonstrate some steady improvement. Areas that needed work were governance, financial management, infection control and elderly care. The quality of service was rated “weak”, and remained weak until 2008-09. However, more recently the trust has demonstrated overall improvement through the interim core standards declaration in October 2009. The trust was registered under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in April 2010 without conditions and with only minor concerns. The overall annual health check ratings of the Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust demonstrate improvement in performance, particularly since the high-profile investigation of services for people with a learning disability. In 2005-06, the trust’s quality of service was rated weak, improving to good in 2007-08, and that improvement was sustained into 2008-09. Its quality of financial management similarly improved. The trust was registered without conditions under the 2008 Act in April 2010, and achieved foundation status on 1 March 2010.

The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly PCT has also seen some improvement in performance. In 2006-07, its quality of commissioning was rated fair, improving to good in 2007-08 and then returning to fair in 2008-09, and its quality of financial management is improving to good. The trust was also registered without condition, however this was with a moderate level of concern.

Also of relevance to all three Cornwall NHS trusts is the report on the inspection of safeguarding and looked-after children’s services published by Ofsted on 23 October 2009. Out of 16 outcomes, Cornwall council was awarded only one score of “good”—there were six of “adequate” and nine of “inadequate”. Although most issues for action are for the local authority, there were also issues for the health community to address, which involve all three NHS trusts to a greater or lesser degree. Action plans are in place, and oversight and scrutiny of the health element is provided by the South West Strategic Health Authority. It is performance-managing progress on delivery of the action plan weekly and bi-monthly, alongside an improvement board, which has been established.

At such an important time, when Cornwall’s NHS trusts are working hard to improve the quality of care, which they need to deliver for Cornwall, it is essential that momentum is not lost. The regulation of the quality of care is vital to patient confidence. The ability of patients and clinicians to access information about the quality of services provided, as well as their being able to feed in information to the inspection and regulation regime, is very important. With the abolition of many centrally imposed targets and more devolved target setting and commissioning, the regulation and inspection of the quality of commissioning will need to adapt to this new environment. Many local factors are important to health outcomes in Cornwall, such as access to services, and those will be able to be taken into consideration. There is also an opportunity to invite the greater involvement of patient and clinical experience of services into the regulation and inspection regime.

The information provided to patients must embrace all that goes on to make up quality, including access, waiting times, cleanliness, infection rates, quality of clinical care, results for patients, access to same-sex accommodation and single rooms, cancelled operations, emergency readmissions, discharge arrangements, numbers of complaints, patient experience and patient-reported outcomes. Most of those data already exist, but they are difficult to access for many people. An open attitude to acknowledging and acting upon criticism is also needed to drive up the quality of care. If we had an open information culture, the scandalous failings that took place in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells and then at Stafford hospital would not have gone unchallenged.

I am concerned by the number of clinicians in the NHS in Cornwall who tell me that when they challenge their manager and try to improve a service for patients they are told, “Nothing can be done”, “There’s no point saying anything as nothing will change” and, “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t complain”. At Mid Staffs there was clearly a sense among some of the professionals, and indeed the public, that the hospital had problems, but that was just the way things were done. That is just not good enough. We should never allow that sort of thing to happen again.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point, particularly about whistleblowers in the NHS. It is vital that they are treated seriously and not threatened or bullied as a result of their whistleblowing.

Within the coalition agreement, to return to the role of patients and the local community, there was a commitment to a strong voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of local primary care trusts, with the other members being representatives from the local authorities. However, those PCTs will be abolished. Does my hon. Friend agree that in Cornwall we need to ensure that there is some democratic accountability and community representation in the overview, scrutiny and management of the local NHS?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and I am sure that when the Minister replies he will describe some of the proposals in the White Paper to give local authorities and representatives far greater involvement in the overview and scrutiny of health services.

Instead of whistleblowing being seen as going outside the organisation, we should see such challenges as integral to safety and improvement within the organisation. In April 2009, John Watkinson was dismissed from his role as chief executive of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust. He took his case to an employment tribunal, which has published its judgment that he was unfairly dismissed. In the opinion of the tribunal, he was unfairly dismissed because he made a “protected disclosure” covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The disclosure was linked to the reconfiguration of upper gastro-intestinal services in Cornwall. The tribunal also found that the trust acted as it did as a result of pressure from the South West strategic health authority. Verita, a specialist company that conducts independent investigations, reviews and inquiries, has been commissioned to undertake a review and will report later this year. With a different culture in the NHS, this difficult situation might well have been avoided.

In the same way, instead of seeing complaints as a burden, distraction or something to be dealt with outside mainstream service provision, we must see them as integral to the improvement of the service that we provide. Learning from our mistakes, listening to complaints, comparing what we do, evaluating our performance and constantly seeking to improve quality are the features of the best performing organisations in every sector, and they can be already found in the best performing NHS trusts.

Listening to patients—asking, reporting and learning from patient experience—will be of great importance in designing and improving services, including achieving greater efficiency. However, the NHS too often asks insufficiently penetrating questions, insufficiently frequently, of too few patients. The NHS patient survey, which asks whether patients are satisfied with the care they received, is too much like asking patients if they are grateful.

I have read with interest the section in the White Paper entitled, “Autonomy, accountability and democratic legitimacy”. It sets out the outline of the proposed registration, evaluation and inspection regime. The Care Quality Commission process is new and generally thought to have made a good start in Cornwall, and I am pleased to see that it has an extended role in regulating quality of care.

Given the important stage that the NHS trusts have reached in Cornwall, assistance from those aiding the improvements that have already been identified in action plans needs to continue. As a result, I want to understand what plans the Minister has to develop the regulation and inspection of care providers and commissioners to ensure that standards of health care and the confidence of clinicians and patients in that care are improved. What is the time frame for migrating from the current regime to the new one and who will be involved in the consultation process for the creation of the new regime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As he says, things have moved on in a few weeks on the commitment directly to elect PCT boards, but a vacuum has been left, and not just in Cornwall, because we must make sure that finances are adequate for future need and because the local community cannot be represented through the GP commissioning boards. It needs a role in the shaping of services.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. colleague. As he reads the White Paper in conjunction with other documents that will flow from it in the next few weeks, he will come to understand that all the pieces are in place to deal with the concerns that he has expressed. We as a Government are committed to providing a strong local voice for patients through democratic participation. As he and my hon. Friends will appreciate, the nub of the White Paper announced today for Cornwall and for the rest of England is about putting patients at the heart of our reforms, so that their desires and health care needs drive the reformed NHS. No longer will the NHS be told from the top what has to be done throughout our local communities, both in Cornwall and elsewhere. It will be driven by a bottom-up, rather than a top-down, process. To meet that objective, PCT commissioning functions will be phased out and transferred to the NHS commissioning board.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth asked about the time scale for these reforms. The time scale for phasing is between now and 2013. We propose to replace PCTs with an enhanced role for elected councillors and local authorities to boost local democratic engagement in the NHS. Given the way in which the whole system is to be held accountable, they will increase their responsibilities from their existing role in the public health sphere.

I now turn to my hon. Friend’s point about information. If we are going to create a national health service that is driven by patients, for patients, they must have the information that qualifies them to make the decisions and the choices that are all part of our vision for a patient-led NHS. I can give her this commitment: information across the whole of the health sector will be made available to all patients and members of the public so that they will be able to access it and then make a judgment based on their health requirements as to their choices of consultants and hospitals. That informed decision making can be provided only by enhanced information for those people. I can assure her that that information will be made available so that they can make those decisions and choices.

My hon. Friend mentioned whistleblowing. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a strong supporter of holding the NHS to account when it fails or could do better to ensure that we have the finest health service that does not concentrate on processes, as it has for too long, but is driven by outcomes, which is the important thing that matters the most to our constituents. My right hon. Friend has already stated that he is going to strengthen and protect the position of whistleblowers, to use the old-fashioned phrase—I am not convinced it is the best one, but it is certainly the most obvious—so that people who see things that are wrong or things being done that should not be done have the protection and the confidence to be able to draw them to the attention of the authorities so that we can right the wrongs and make the improvements without those individuals fearing for their jobs, future careers and commitment to the NHS. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the inspection and regulation regime and the Care Quality Commission. Let me tell her, although she will certainly know the basic principles, that the role of the CQC as the regulator of all health care providers will be strengthened by a clear focus on essential levels of safety and quality. All providers of regulated health care and adult social care will be registered against essential levels of safety and quality, and the CQC has the power to take action against providers that do not meet these standards. The CQC will carry out targeted inspections of providers against the essential standards.

As my hon. Friend will be aware from the White Paper, GP consortiums will commission the majority of health services in place of PCTs, and the NHS commissioning board will authorise consortiums and hold them to account for their performance. The CQC will no longer have a role in assessing commissioning. On the involvement of patient and clinical experience of services in the regulation and inspection regime, instead of focusing on the measurement of processes or targets, the CQC now places the experiences of the people who use health and social care services at the very heart of its work.

The CQC actively seeks the views of people who use health and social care services when making assessments of the quality and safety of that care. When inspecting a care provider, it asks to see evidence of outcomes and evidence that patients experience effective, safe and appropriate care. Rather than looking at policies, it speaks to people experiencing care, to their families and to staff to find out what the quality of care is like in practice. The CQC also actively seeks the views of clinicians, who play a crucial role in improving the quality of care. When there is a problem, it works with them to work out the best way to solve it and to improve care. Clinicians’ expertise in service delivery and design is invaluable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

In addition, the CQC works in partnership with a range of professional regulators, such as the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, to ensure that its assessments of a provider are informed by their views on clinical best practice. Integration with HealthWatch, as announced in today’s White Paper, will give patients in Cornwall and throughout the country a greater public voice, providing a greater connection between their views and the actions of the regulator.

I reassure my hon. Friend, my colleague the hon. Member for St Ives and all other hon. Members from the great county of Cornwall that we are determined to improve and enhance the quality of care in the county and throughout the whole country. We want to ensure that the improvements are experienced by patients, because patients are at the heart of the new NHS that we envisage. Only by taking into account what they want and their patient experience within the NHS can we make the improvements necessary to ensure that we have a great NHS not just for the next five years but thereafter.

Question put and agreed to.