National Health Service
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.
Andrew George
I accept that the Health and Social Care Bill is the longest and most incoherent suicide note in NHS history. Indeed, I am robust on this issue: I have voted against the Bill and will continue to take that view. However, considering that the right hon. Gentleman was involved when preferential arrangements were provided for private sector providers coming into the NHS, is this debate not an opportunity for him to acknowledge that at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the House for what was a rather ridiculous and one-sided policy?
Andy Burnham
Let me first acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s courage in standing up and voting against the Health and Social Care Bill. I just wish that more of his Liberal Democrat colleagues had similar conviction and principle, and could stand up to the Government on a Bill that he knows—and which, in their heart of hearts, many of them know—will seriously damage the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the introduction of private sector capacity. I will not apologise for that, because that additional capacity was brought in to bring down NHS waiting lists, something that benefited his constituents. By bringing in that extra capacity we brought down NHS waiting lists to an all-time low and delivered the 18-week target. I am not going to apologise for that. The reason the NHS commands such strong support in the country today is that people’s experience of it improved in those years. I mentioned the preferred provider policy a moment ago. I believe that the private sector has a role to play in delivering world-class care to patients, and I am happy to put that on record.
Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Burstow
There is a clear duty on the boards to act, too, and I ask the hon. Lady why the Labour Government, in 13 years, chose not to do anything about that matter. There was never a legal duty of any sort in the past and we now have clear duties on all the bodies and on the Secretary of State. Of course, I shall come on to talk about the mandate, which has a role to play, too.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I merely wish to seek clarity from my hon. Friend on some of the briefings that his Department has been putting out about the duty to provide, to which he has referred already. Those briefings indicate that there was somehow no provision in the National Health Service Act 1946 for a duty on the Secretary of State to provide. I wanted my hon. Friend to acknowledge that section 1(1) states
“and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with the following provisions of this Act.”
Equally, the National Health Service Act 1977 contains the same reference to the
“purpose to provide or secure”.
The requirement to provide or secure is repeated throughout all the Health Acts.
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he listens carefully to what I am saying, he will hear that I am developing an argument that will go towards answering that question. Rather than trying to answer it in a very small way now, I would rather answer it in a comprehensive way through reference to what I had planned to say to the House.
As I was saying, hon. Members should ask themselves how the Secretary of State would be able to wash their hands of the NHS while simultaneously being legally required to deliver on all the duties I have just outlined. Crucially, the Secretary of State also retains the duty to promote a comprehensive health service, which dates from the Act that founded the NHS in 1946 and has been unchanged by this Bill. The Secretary of State will also have the duty to secure that services are provided for that comprehensive health service and will have failed in that duty if they are not.
The Secretary of State also has the ability—the obligation, in fact—to set goals and priorities for the NHS through the mandate. That will set out what the Secretary of State wants the NHS to deliver, which will be updated every year. It will be widely consulted on and Parliament will scrutinise it, for the first time ever giving Parliament a detailed say in what the NHS is tasked to deliver.
The Secretary of State has further powers in addition to the mandate to impose standing rules by which the NHS commissioning board and the clinical commissioning groups must operate, which will be subject to scrutiny and control by Parliament—a power Parliament does not currently have. What is changing, however, is the Secretary of State’s relationship with the NHS in terms of the role of Ministers in the commissioning and provision of services to the NHS. The Government believe that it should not be the job of Ministers to provide directly or commission NHS services, either. It should be the role of front-line professionals, who should have the freedom to focus on driving up quality of care, free from interference by Ministers in operational decisions—something that all parties in this House have said that they want to see.
We understand that all Government legislation has a responsibility to foresee the unforeseeable, to ask questions about the worst-case scenario and to ensure that the answers stand up to scrutiny. That is why this Bill contains a number of back-stop provisions to make it absolutely certain that any future Secretary of State will not be able to turn a blind eye to failings of service provision, so we have ensured that the Secretary of State has the power to step in if the board, or Monitor, is failing to deliver on its duties, including any duties imposed on the board through the mandate.
Finally, in the event of a significant emergency such as a pandemic, the Secretary of State will have powers to direct any commissioner or provider of NHS services.
Paul Burstow
I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and then I shall make some progress because this is a very big group of amendments.
Simon Hughes
I am very grateful and I will not keep the Minister long. I have listened very carefully, as colleagues will have done, to my hon. Friend’s extremely reassuring comments. If he and the Secretary of State are committed to working on some wording that will alleviate concerns at the beginning of the Bill, I know that my colleagues and I will be very happy to work with him.
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for his appreciation of the efforts I am making. I, too, appreciate his comments on the Government’s intentions. It has not been my argument at any stage to suggest that the Government’s intentions are dishonourable. He has mentioned the possibility of tabling amendments, but may I have some reassurance that this is a genuine and serious issue—that we need to have policy, but also, clearly, the restraint of the Secretary of State at the same time?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions, as we have a lot to get through. Hon. Members should not take advantage of the Minister’s generosity in giving way.
Paul Burstow
I am conscious of the time, and the fact that other hon. Members want to move and speak to other amendments. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make a bit more progress.
Paul Burstow
I am talking about my hon. Friend’s amendment, so I will, of course, give way.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me, as he is referring to my amendment. I think that I understand what the Government are trying to achieve here, but in order to assess properly what quality and outcomes are, that assessment must not be pre-empted. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that good quality and outcomes are not rewarded too early after treatment, before people can make a proper assessment and know the long-term impact of a new procedure.
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend makes a fair point—one that, I think, we would agree with entirely. That is why the Government published, for the first time ever, an outcomes framework for the NHS that is all about considering how clinical care leads to the sort of longer-term outcomes that he seeks, so I hope that that addresses his comments. That will be built into the way in which we go forward with drafting the regulations to reinforce that approach.
On the stability of services, my hon. Friend has tabled amendments 1203 and 1204 and new clause 18, which link very closely to Opposition amendments 42 and 43 on the interdependency of services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to two similar amendments that my hon. Friend moved yesterday. We agree with hon. Members about the need to secure continued access to services for patients. We have introduced substantial new proposals to improve on our previous plans. However, I repeat what my right hon. Friend said yesterday: this is not about securing access to the same services in perpetuity. That has never been the case, and it should not be the case. Services evolve, and we must allow new providers—whether NHS, social enterprise or private sector—to come in where they can deliver high-quality care for patients.
I shall turn now to excessive prescription and a number of issues that arise from several amendments, which would tilt the balance in a way that would turn the system much more into a command-and-control one than many hon. Members have argued that we should have for many a year. Amendment 1218 would break a fundamental principle at the heart of our proposals: that the membership of CCGs should consist solely of GPs, and that we should encourage, rather than prescribe, how they involve other professionals.
Amendments 1237 and 1238 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make transfer schemes for property, staff, rights and liabilities, thus making it less flexible to make transfers from, for example, a PCT to a CCG. I am well aware that many people feel that the ability to transfer staff in that way is an essential part of managing a smooth transition. Therefore, to deny the Secretary of State the ability to do that seems very odd. Amendment 1167 is unnecessary for the same reason. CCGs are different entities from PCTs, with different structures, duties and functions. It does not make sense to set a limit on the number of CCGs by comparison with PCTs.
Opposition amendment 5 would delete clause 10, but Opposition new clause 14 would reinstate it, so it is a sort of hokey-cokey set of proposals, whereby a provision would be taken out and then put back in again. As the Bill includes a power to make regulations to take account of people in specific circumstances, new clause 14 and amendment 1178, which is consequential on it, are unnecessary.
New clause 11 would require the NHS commissioning board to limit the administration spend of CCGs individually and collectively by comparison to 2009-10. In other words, it would set an arbitrary starting line and effectively lock the budgets that way. An absurd shackling of the NHS commissioning board or CCGs in that way belies common sense and sound financial governance.
Amendment 1206 runs the inherent risks, as discussed in Committee, of trying to prescribe the setting allocations in legislation. I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and the White Paper made it clear that we want to ensure that access in every part of the country is fair and equitable. We will want to ensure that that is achieved, and I am happy to continue to discuss those issues with my hon. Friends.
Amendment 1167 is unnecessary for the same reason. CCGs are different entities from PCTs, with different structures, duties and functions, and it would not make sense to set limits in such a way. The additional statutory provisions set out in new clause 10 are also unnecessary. Imposition of a minimum waiting time would not take account of the clinical needs of individual patients, and it is for clinicians to plan care on the basis of the clinical needs of patients and their right to access the best service.
We are considering how best to prevent PCTs from imposing clinically inappropriate blanket minimum waiting times, but there are already sufficient powers in the Bill to address the issue when it comes to CCGs.
Amendment 41 is also about consultation and transparency. We have already changed the Bill to enhance the duty on CCGs to involve and consult the public, but the commissioners must have sufficient flexibility to be proportionate in how they involve patients and service users. CCGs will not be able to use that flexibility to underplay their duty to involve the public.
I want to discuss a section of the Bill that I know concerns some of my hon. Friends and which perhaps was not much discussed in Committee—public health. A number of amendments are relevant here. New clause 23 would create the role of a chief environmental health officer. The chief medical officer, however, is already able to provide the very advice that the new clause would establish a new role to provide. The chief medical officer can provide independent advice on environmental health issues. At a time of financial stringency, the new clause would create a layer of wasteful bureaucracy.
Amendments 1253 to 1260 relate to the role of directors of public health. Our position is that they should be employed by the local authority to support local government in the new role that the Bill confers on local authorities in respect of public health.
Owen Smith
I am happy—we are happy—with the Secretary of State being properly, publicly accountable through this House and having a legal duty placed on him to secure and provide politically accountable health services in this country. We are deeply concerned that the changes envisaged in the Bill, which radically alter the nature of the NHS, will not be able to be held to account through the Secretary of State in future Parliaments. That is our profound concern about the line of direct political accountability that so many of the Minister’s hon. Friends share, which is why they have tabled amendments to that effect and why they have repeatedly raised these concerns in the Bill Committee and elsewhere. The Minister does not have those concerns, but many other Liberal Democrats do.
Andrew George
I have to say that I entirely respect my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman’s point echoes what I said earlier in contradicting the Department of Health’s claim that the original 1946 Act did not have a requirement to provide or secure services. My quote provided evidence that that requirement has always been there. The Department also claims that because of the changes it is no longer legally acceptable for the Secretary of State to have that responsibility, but that issue has not been properly addressed. Would the hon. Gentleman care to deal with the point that it may no longer be legally acceptable for the Secretary of State to have that duty?
Owen Smith
As I said earlier, or rather as somebody said on my behalf, I am not a lawyer—I am a historian. As a historian, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the 1946 Act does indeed say:
“provide or secure the effective provision of services”.
He was entirely right in that, and I could not understand the response from the Minister.
The key thing is that eight months, two Bills and 1,500 amendments later, we are still debating clause 1 and its legal interpretation. That is testament to just how badly botched this Bill has been and just how alarming it is for many people—patients and NHS staff—that we, the legislature, do not understand, or have divided views about, our understanding of the critical responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Andrew George
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who addressed the issue of political accountability in a considered way. I shall return to that and relate it to a number of amendments in my name and those of some of my hon. Friends. I shall refer to a number of amendments that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) covered in his opening remarks and dealt with in a fair and balanced manner, although not entirely to my satisfaction in every case. I shall also raise further questions.
I have enormous respect for all that my hon. Friend has done. His contribution to the debate on social care is second to none. That expertise is especially beneficial to the Government at present and some important advances have been made, for which we are all grateful. I acknowledge that he approaches all aspects of his work with the best of intentions, and I do not question those. The amendments that I have tabled indicate that I believe we may need to reconsider some of these issues. I should also mention at this stage that I may seek to push one or two of them to a vote.
On Second Reading, I made a speech that was critical of the Bill and refused to support the Government by abstaining at that stage, and of course the Bill has gone through a number of significant changes since then and concessions have been made. I have been criticised by some for making that speech and refusing to support the Government, but I feel vindicated as a result of the pause and the listening exercise. I might be criticised and accused of disloyalty, but that is how Back Benchers exercise our role of holding the Government to account. It is reasonable for us to use our powers to bring forward amendments and, in so doing, probe the Government and ask them to be accountable for the policies that they are bringing forward. I hope that in the weeks and months ahead, I will be vindicated for having done so, but I do not necessarily expect that acknowledgment to be provided now.
I was relatively content with the original coalition agreement. I am no great defender of primary care trusts, but I think that using the existing institutional infrastructure, grafting in accountability to the patients and communities that the commissioning bodies will serve and ensuring clinician involvement in those commissioning decisions, would strike entirely the right balance. That would provide a way of going forward without scuppering, dismantling or exploding the whole system in the way the Bill is doing.
There was no mention in the coalition agreement of changing the duties of the Secretary of State, and I have read a number of legal opinions on that issue. I also believe, as I have indicated in several interventions so far, that some of us have been misled on that point. Some of the legal advice that I have been given by colleagues suggests that the Secretary of State in fact never had a duty to provide in the 1946 Act. That is fundamentally wrong. Perhaps I will discuss this with the Minister after the debate and show him the documents that I have been given and some of the comments that have been made. As some of my colleagues who were there at the time and heard the advice will know—[Interruption.] I hasten to add that they were not there in 1946—I know that I have aged in my time in Parliament, but I cannot recollect that time. My colleagues know that we have been briefed that there was never any duty to provide in the 1946 Act, but there is evidence—I do not need to give the quote a third time—that there was clearly a requirement in the 1946 Act to provide and secure effective provision. That requirement has always been there in successive health Acts in this country. I want to relate that to a point the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) made in a more tribal manner.
Paul Burstow
May I just make it clear that I do not think that I or any other Minister at any point, either at the Dispatch Box or in other discussions, ever suggested that the 1946 Act or any subsequent Act did not have the duty to provide? What we have said is that the duty to provide has progressively, particularly over the past 20 to 30 years, become a duty that is not exercised. It has been delegated and is increasingly exercised instead by separate bodies, such as NHS trusts and foundation trusts, using their own independent power to provide services.
Andrew George
Yes, and my new clause 16 proposes to address that issue through an opportunity for the Secretary of State to intervene as necessary.
The Secretary of State in his intervention on the hon. Member for Pontypridd made it clear that in any case Secretaries of State tend not to micro-manage by intervening or by providing on every whip and flip, and there is no suggestion of that, but as a backstop we require the guarantee that, if all else fails and the whole system does not provide what we believe needs to be put in place to provide for a comprehensive health service, the Secretary of State will be there. There would be no harm in putting that word back in the Bill in one form or another. I do not understand the obstinacy, and in my view there is no legal impediment to the Government doing so.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, because this is such a totemic issue, the key reason behind the proposed change in the wording is totally to reassure the public that, come what may, and even if delegated powers mean that the Secretary of State has not been involved for a number of years, the buck will stop with the Secretary of State?
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has referred to the issue as being totemic, and although I do not want to detain the House for too long because many others have referred to it, he is absolutely right. Now that it has been raised in such a manner, unless there are good legal reasons not to insert it in the Bill, it should be.
On the comments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I make a further point. We are talking about major changes, and the issue is not only totemic but contextual, because, in the context of a major—in fact, the most major—reorganisation of the health service, the reassurance of that backstop being in place would be all the more important.
I do not questions the intentions of the Secretary of State, for whom I have tremendous respect, but, having opposed the creation of the health service in the first place, the Conservatives have a problem, because the context is one of a major change, and whether we like it or not the assumption is that, if the Secretary of State is a Conservative, the hurdle will have to be set higher to reassure the nation that there is no untoward intention behind the legislation.
Simon Hughes
My hon. Friend knows that I share his views, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) made the point that this is both a political and a legal debate. First, there is certainly a political argument for keeping the definition the same as it has been throughout the history of the NHS, which was created in concert by a Liberal and implemented by Labour. Secondly, there is a legal justification for doing so, because there are specific powers to provide, and therefore there is a generic logic in stating that, as part of the initial definition, there is provision for and security of health services. I am therefore sure that my hon. Friend will be on a winning wicket in the end.
Andrew George
I hope so, but sporting my cricketing injury I hope that that analogy does not apply.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this point and think that he should absolutely stick to his guns. In my constituency, the birthplace of the national health service, 40 people have written to me about the issue in just the past few days, so it is important that he sticks to his guns and we get the message over to the Secretary of State this evening.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I should also say that the Minister acknowledged in his opening remarks that there was an issue that needed further work and clarification. I entirely welcomed that statement and will be happy to be involved in any discussions that might advance the point. However, in spite of the discussions and debates so far, the issue remains unresolved. It might be resolved in another place, but until then it is important to make the totemic point that the matter is of such significant concern that it is worth our while pressing the matter further.
Paul Burstow
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Department of Health’s website. Yesterday we published a detailed response to both 38 Degrees opinions. It obviously draws on the legal advice given to Ministers and provides a full exposition of why we believe the points that I set out in my opening remarks.
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. During his remarks, he said that he believed that there was a risk that the Secretary of State might be drawn into micro-managing; that was one of his primary arguments. All I can say is that if there were a risk of the Secretary of State micro-managing, the Secretary of State could decide to do or not to do it. Simply removing the power comes back to my point about at least making sure that the Secretary of State has the ability to direct where appropriate. If the Secretary of State had that duty to provide, it would follow that he must have the powers to intervene as I have described.
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is making some important points, which give me the chance to underscore the important points that I have made. The Bill retains for the Secretary of State the capacity to intervene and exercise the functions of all the bodies established by it, and—in extremis, as a last resort—to make sure that services are provided. It is clear that that capacity has remained, not least in regard to the Secretary of State’s ability to establish special health authorities.
My hon. Friend is asking for back-stops, and back-stops have to be real and have effect. That is why we put them into the Bill as we have, so that the Secretary of State does have, in extremis—in the circumstances that concern my hon. Friend and others—the ability to take the steps necessary to secure and ensure that services are provided to ensure a comprehensive health service.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I gently remind the Minister of two things? First, he has to address the whole House. Secondly, it is not a private conversation between him and his hon. Friend, and his interventions are supposed to be brief. A lot of people are waiting to speak.
Andrew George
On that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end that part of the conversation and move on, acknowledging that my hon. Friend has made a point that is worth considering.
Amendment 1224 would restore the duty to provide or secure provision of health services. Although that is seen as the headline proposal, it is consequential on new clauses 16 and 17, hence my intention to draw attention to the likelihood of my seeking to divide the House on those issues.
Amendments 1222 and 1223 seek to establish why the Bill has never provided for the Secretary of State to provide or secure a comprehensive health service rather than promote a comprehensive health service. This is an either/or situation, but I draw attention to the possibility that instead of pressing new clause 16, I may, in discussion with others, seek to divide the House on amendment 1222.
Amendment 1183 would beef up a duty of the Secretary of State—a theme that runs through a number of amendments. The purpose of amendments 1183 and 1194 is to address the conflict between having regard to reducing inequalities and placing above that duty the other duties that apply—for example, on choice. Amendment 1183 seeks to ensure that it is the duty of the Secretary of State, in reducing inequalities, to
“act with a view to”
rather than merely “have regard to”. Otherwise, the responsibility, and the duty, on the Secretary of State is rather weak. That applies to amendment 1194 in the same manner.
New clause 18 would impose a new duty on the CQC, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups not to undermine existing NHS services in an unplanned way through the operation of competition. Rather than extending my description of this issue, it might be worth referring to the debate that we had yesterday about the regulations surrounding the functions and duties of Monitor, as the same question arises. We have to look at the impact that competition is likely to have on the provision of essential services such as major trauma and accident and emergency, where its existence may destabilise emergency services through the loss of, for example, important underpinning elective services provided by the hospital.
New clause 20 would ban the wholesale outsourcing of commissioning work with regard to clinical commissioning groups. That was demanded in a Liberal Democrat conference motion but has still not been delivered. The commissioning process is a public function, not a private function. The amendment therefore seeks to change schedule 2 in different ways to prevent private entities on clinical commissioning group committees and sub-committees from commissioning and making other decisions. This also applies to amendments 1224, 1245, 1244 and 1249.
The Minister said that the work of the Neurological Alliance is important to preserve. I hope he will recognise that new clause 20 talks only about commissioning work being
“predominantly retained as a function by staff directly employed by the clinical commissioning group.”
There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the bulk of the commissioning work—not the decision, but the work—of a clinical commissioning group from being done by a private company and thus, potentially, in secret. I hope he will accept that under the current wording of schedule 2, private entities will be able to sit on clinical commissioning committees and sub-committees and make commissioning decisions.
Amendments 1184 to 1188 and 1195 would demote choice to a subsidiary duty of commissioners to tackle fair access and inequality of outcomes. They relate to page 17 of the Bill. The priority of choice over inequity and inequality was introduced by the Government after the pause and the NHS Future Forum report as a way of promoting competition in ways other than through the role of Monitor. The amendments would reverse that priority for the NHS commissioning board.
Amendment 1211 provides that clinical commissioning groups should be more coterminous with local authorities than is the case under the Bill. The Minister said that there is no intention that clinical commissioning group boundaries will cross local authority boundaries. However, we all know that district councils do not cross local authority boundaries. In Cornwall, for example, we are likely to move from one PCT to three clinical commissioning groups, which will make the streamlining of the pathways between health and social care a lot more difficult. The purpose of amendment 1211 is to enforce that point.
I am aware of time and I hope that the House will appreciate that I will not explain every aspect of the many other amendments I have tabled. I am aware that there are significant issues that other people wish to raise. I simply emphasise that what the Minister said about health and wellbeing boards being able to refer matters to the Secretary of State is once again something that we have always argued for. Local authorities should of course be given a far greater say in commissioning decisions and in setting the strategy for health services in their area. As a back-stop, it is important that matters can be referred to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has tabled some important amendments in respect of public health, some of which I have supported, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. I apologise for the amount of time I have taken, but I hope that the Minister will address the important issues advanced by the amendments.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I apologise for not being present for the first half hour of this debate. I was in the Environmental Audit Committee, where I had specifically asked for certain witnesses to be invited, and I have not yet worked out how to be in two places at once, although it is on my list.
I will make a few general points about this part of the Bill before turning to a couple of the amendments that are in my name. I echo the many concerns that have been expressed around the Chamber this afternoon. Many of us argue that there is no legal duty on the Government to provide health services. The new hands-off clause limits the Government’s ability to intervene should health care provision be deemed inadequate, because it says that clinical commissioning groups, the new agents of health provision that can include private companies, must be free to exercise powers and duties without “unnecessary burdens”. I am equally concerned that the powers and duties of a commissioning group, including its ability to award contracts and charge for commercial activities, could be exercised by a private health care company. The Bill opens the way for private companies to determine much of English health care and takes away the Government’s duties and powers, which is why I believe it should be opposed.
Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I will give the hon. Gentleman a shorter answer this time: he does not talk to enough people in the NHS.
Let me return to the important point that I was about to make. I was saying that criticism of the Bill has typically developed to the point of literally misrepresenting the facts in order to attack the Bill, as was the case with 38 Degrees. I am indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for sharing with me a letter that he prepared for the better information of his constituents. He looked at the legal opinion obtained by 38 Degrees and concluded that it did not support the views that those behind the 38 Degrees website evidently wished it did.
For example, 38 Degrees claims that the Bill removes the Secretary of State’s duty to provide a comprehensive health service. However, its own legal advice makes it clear that the Secretary of State has never had a duty to provide a comprehensive health service—only a duty to “promote” a comprehensive health service, which is exactly reproduced in clause 1.
Clause 1 also makes it clear that the Secretary of State must secure the provision of that service. The “duty to provide” certain services to which 38 Degrees refers is a duty that I, as Secretary of State, currently delegate to primary care trusts. In future, the Bill will—in exactly the same way—pass that duty of the Secretary of State to the NHS commissioning board and to clinical commissioning groups. In other words, the situation will be legally unchanged. The Secretary of State has a duty, and discharges it through organisations to which he or she delegates that power. Strictly speaking, they have more direct statutory duties, but the duty to provide will not change.
38 Degrees also claims that the Bill opens up the NHS to competition law, but its own legal advice—which it obviously did not like—made it clear that there would be no change between the present competition regime and that which would operate if and when the Bill became law.
I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, whose forensic analysis accords with our own view. The provision, under the Bill, of a comprehensive NHS is watertight, and it is equally clear that the Bill does not change the extent of the application of competition law and EU procurement rules. The 38 Degrees campaign should be seen for the distorting and misleading political propaganda that it is.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I entirely endorse the Secretary of State’s point about the biased way in which the last Government advanced the private sector, but may I make a point about the changes that have resulted from the listening exercise? The Secretary of State has sought to reassure the House about Monitor’s role of integration and promoting collaboration. Would he be prepared to respond to, and perhaps even accept, amendments that I have tabled—for example, amendment 1226—which propose, I think reasonably and in a balanced way, that promoting the importance and the role of integration should be among the principal duties?
Mr Lansley
As we said in our response to the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, we recognise the importance of integrating health and social care services—while concentrating on the needs of patients and their families—to the achievement of our aims. However, I do not believe that we would further those aims by changing Monitor’s name, as amendment 1225 suggests. Although I agree with the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), we have an alternative approach.
Rather than making it explicit that the Secretary of State could impose requirements on commissioners in key areas through regulations, as my hon. Friend suggests in amendment 1209, the Bill proposes that commissioners should have clear statutory duties to reduce inequalities between patients, in relation to both access and outcomes. That is covered in clauses 20 and 23. Commissioners would also have to promote integration of services in carrying out those duties. That is covered in clause 20, which inserts new section 13M of the National Health Service Act 2006, and in clause 23, which inserts new section 14Y. Those clauses refer respectively to the NHS commissioning board and to clinical commissioning groups.
The Bill would also establish clear duties for Monitor to allow the integration of health care services and the integration of health care with other relevant services, including social care. We have already amended the Bill to make it clear that Monitor should not promote competition for competition’s sake: this is all about quality. However, integration can only ever be a means to that end, not an end in itself. Integration, like competition, is designed to secure continuous improvement in the quality of services and a reduction in inequalities, as clauses 20 and 23 make clear.
Although I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, I ask him to not to press amendments 1225 to 1228 when we reach the appropriate moment.
Mr Lansley
No. She can sit down.
Let me come to the other Opposition amendments. Amendment 10 would delete all of part 3, which would be absurd. Some of the other Opposition amendments are equally absurd. Amendment 28 envisages that part 3 would remain in place, but that Monitor would license providers of NHS services. However, it then takes away any means of enforcement. Perhaps the Labour party has forgotten that in government if you create obligations it is rather helpful to create a means by which they can be enforced.
Opposition amendment 44 would take the Bill down a slippery slope by trying to prescribe the range of factors that Monitor should reflect in setting prices for NHS services. Such a list could never be exhaustive and would inevitably suggest that some factors were more important than others. It would undermine our ability to hold Monitor to account for setting prices that promote patients’ interests. We must focus Monitor on its duties to promote the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of NHS services, not on trying to prescribe in legislation how it goes about it.
Labour Members have tabled amendments to part 4 that indicate that they either do not understand the Bill, or have abandoned their previous, repeated commitment to supporting all NHS trusts in becoming foundation trusts. They gave that commitment back in 2003, when they passed the necessary legislation, and repeated it in about 2006, when they said that trusts should all be foundation trusts by 2008. The Labour party manifesto from last year—2010—said:
“All hospitals will become Foundation Trusts, with successful FTs given the support and incentives to take over those that are under performing”.
Compare our programme for such hospitals as those in Trafford and Carlisle. The manifesto continued:
“Failing hospitals will have their management replaced. Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom”—
additional freedoms—
“to expand their provision into primary and community care, and to increase their private services”.
We will debate that later today, but I should complete the quote, or I might be accused of being selective:
“where these are consistent with NHS values, and provided they generate surpluses that are invested directly into the NHS.”
That is exactly what we are proposing.
The Labour party appears utterly confused. Does it support foundation trusts or not? The NHS Future Forum said that all NHS trusts should continue to work towards achieving FT status by 2014. It was right: achieving FT status is about demonstrating clinical and financial stability, and we think that all NHS providers should be expected to do that, in the interests of NHS patients and staff. If we maintained the NHS trust legislative model in statute, we would risk losing the change in mindset and the momentum that is being demonstrated by prospective foundation trusts.
Our consequential amendments 219, 220 and 367 to 370 will simply remove references to NHS trusts when they no longer exist—and not, of course, until then. For the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I add that our amendments 185 to 188 make it clear that—sadly for those in Wales—a foundation trust cannot merge with or acquire a Welsh NHS trust.
The Opposition want to take the retrograde step of de-authorising foundation trusts, retaining NHS trusts under the Secretary of State’s direct control, and having them dependent on the layers of bureaucracy that go with that. There would be all the regulatory requirements for foundation trusts and independent providers, and all the bureaucracy that has accompanied NHS trusts and strategic health authorities. That would undermine the FT regulatory regime and the objective of all NHS trusts becoming FTs. Opposition Members who voted in favour of the original legislation establishing foundation trusts in 2003 can have no credibility in supporting Labour now, because the very purpose of that legislation was to give hospitals greater autonomy.
Other Opposition amendments would simply result in duplication and reduced coherence in the Bill. For example, amendments 1166 and 19 seek to retain controls on goods and services, and borrowing and property, but that would duplicate Monitor’s powers through the licensing regime. Deleting clause 166, as the Opposition propose would undermine our intention of increasing transparency in the public financing of foundation trusts. I am looking for the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart); this would have been her moment. Through our amendments, we can show how we can maintain support for FTs, if necessary, in a transparent fashion, including through a requirement, which the Labour party apparently wants to delete, on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report showing what form of financial support has been given to foundation trusts.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat friends below the Gangway, who expressed their intention of improving NHS services and ensuring sustainable access for patients. We all share those aims, but I believe that we have in place alternative approaches to meeting those aims. The hon. Member for St Ives tabled a series of amendments emphasising the need to secure sustainability in the provision of NHS services. Securing sustainable access to meet patients’ needs is fundamental to good commissioning. We would expect the board to ensure that there was sufficient competency over issues when it authorised clinical commissioning groups to take on their new responsibilities, and when holding them to account for doing that job.
As the Government have said many times, our focus is on outcomes, including ensuring that patients have access to the services that they need when they need them. That the outcomes must be sustainable is obviously implied, but that is not necessarily the same as saying that commissioners must ensure the sustainability of particular providers or particular services, as amendments 1205 and 1209 suggest when referring to the sustainability of “existing NHS services”. In some cases it will not be in the interests of patients to maintain the status quo—for example, where those services may be unable to improve in line with new standards of clinical best practice, or where there is clear evidence that centralising specialist services on fewer sites would improve health outcomes, as we have seen in examples relating to cardiac, stroke and trauma services. So although I agree with the intention behind these amendments regarding the role of commissioners, I must urge the hon. Member for St Ives not to press them.
I addressed earlier the hon. Gentleman’s amendments about integration and collaboration. On integration, we agree with the conclusion of the NHS Future Forum that integrating services around the needs of patients and giving patients greater choice over who provides those services are not mutually exclusive. As the NHS Future Forum made clear, this is a false dichotomy. As the NHS Future Forum’s report stated:
“If commissioners want to commission integrated care they will only succeed in doing this by creating a new market in integrated care services and stopping the current commissioning of episodic services from different NHS organisations.”
As the hon. Member for St Ives will recognise, his amendments 1207 and 1208 are based upon that dichotomy, so I ask him to withdraw them.
Mr Lansley
No. I do not want to intrude on the time of other Members.
Amendments 1219 and 1220 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) would apply the Enterprise Act 2002 to mergers of the activities of foundation trusts with businesses, but would exclude from these arrangements mergers between foundation trusts. I have given careful thought to this proposal, but I am not convinced that it would address two of the problems of the existing regime.
There is currently legal uncertainty as to when and where the 2002 Act would apply to mergers of foundation trusts. As a result, under the current arrangements for the review of mergers involving foundation trusts by the Co-operation and Competition Panel, there is always a potential risk of duplication—or worse still, double jeopardy. The risk arising from a separate regime for foundation trusts would be increased where a trust’s activities extended beyond Monitor’s remit—for example, where a foundation trust provided social care or supplied goods. Consolidating oversight of foundation trust mergers under the Enterprise Act, as proposed by the Bill, would avoid the risk of double jeopardy and eliminate the uncertainty of the current approach.
Mergers are a specialist area. Hence, we think it is right to maintain existing responsibilities and expertise within the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, rather than resource a further body to consider potential mergers in health care. It may reassure my hon. Friend if I say that the OFT and the Competition Commission would consult Monitor to ensure that they had a full understanding of the health care issues involved.
Mr Dorrell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the further important clarifications in their position is the stress that the Government have placed—rightly—on the importance of the link between Monitor and the Care Quality Commission to ensure that standards in foundation trusts are not just about the achievement of financial targets, but are about standards of care quality delivered to patients. The link between the two regulators—one of quality and the other of financial standards—is an important part of the regulatory structure that the Government are introducing.
Andrew George
I entirely endorse the point that my right hon. Friend makes about the need to uphold standards and the role of Monitor in that respect. However, with regard to the Secretary of State’s response to me about the sustainability of essential services—acute emergency trauma centres—does he agree that Monitor must safeguard those services and not allow them to be eroded by the competitive environment in which they will operate?
Mr Dorrell
I agree that the sustainability of essential services—or, in the Government’s wording, the continuity of essential services—is a key role of Monitor. If I may interpret what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the patient’s interest is continuity of service, but not necessarily from the same provider for ever more. There has to be a commitment to sustain the service, and if there is to be a change of provider, the service has to be sustained through the change of provider, but the service does not necessarily have to be sustained by the same provider. Nor has there ever been such sustained service. There are not many people who rely on the service once provided by the Westminster hospital, as it is now a block of flats. I believe, however, that the service delivered to patients in this part of London is better as a consequence of the change that resulted from that decision.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
This is a crucial part of the debate that we will have over the next couple of days. Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill are at the heart of the Government’s proposals for the NHS and of the concerns that professional bodies, patient groups, members of the public and Members—at least on this side of the House—have about those proposals. These parts will introduce a new economic regulator for the NHS, modelled on the same lines as those for gas, electricity and railways. They also enshrine UK and EU competition law into primary legislation on the NHS for the first time.
We have also been discussing crucial new amendments that, despite what the Secretary of State says, have not been scrutinised by the Future Forum, about the Government’s new failure regime. That essentially addresses which local services and hospitals—such as we all have in our constituencies—will be allowed to fail.
Each of these subjects should be subject to separate and far longer debates, because they are of such importance to our constituents, our local NHS staff and our local services. However, because the House has been given so little time and the Government have tabled so many amendments, we have been forced to take these huge issues together—[Interruption.] As always, the Minister of State groans from a sedentary position, but Members have a right to question the Government on their proposals for local hospitals and services, and three or four hours is not sufficient. I hope that the other place will take that into account.
The Bill establishes Monitor as an economic regulator, modelled on the same lines as those for gas, electricity and railways. The explanatory notes make this explicit. Page 85 states that clauses in part 3 are based
“upon precedents from the utilities, rail and telecoms industries”.
Indeed, in an interview with The Times earlier this year, David Bennett, the new chairman of Monitor, confirmed that that was the Government’s plan, saying that Monitor’s role would be comparable with the regulators of the gas, electricity and telecoms markets.
Labour Members have consistently argued that such a model is entirely wrong for our NHS. People’s need for health care is not the same as their need for gas, water or telecoms. There is a fundamental difference between needs, ability to benefit, the complexity of services and the fact that they are far more interlinked. The NHS is not a normal market. It is not like a supermarket, or like gas or the railways. There are much more important issues at stake.
The Government have made some minor amendments to Monitor’s duties, but they will not ensure the integration and collaboration that many hon. Members recognise is vital to improving health, especially for patients with long-term and chronic conditions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, the duties still rig Monitor in favour of competition. It is not only Monitor’s duties that do that. Chapter 2 of part 3 contains 12 clauses that explicitly introduce competition law into primary legislation on the NHS for the first time. The clauses give Monitor sweeping powers to conduct investigations into NHS services; to disqualify senior staff in hospitals and other NHS services; and to impose penalties for breaches of competition law, including the power to fine services that are found to have broken the law up to 10% of their turnover. Not only that, but third parties, including competitors, can bring damage claims against those services.
The Government claim, as the Secretary of State did earlier, that somehow those provisions will not change anything. In that case, why bother to have the clauses in the Bill? As the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, Labour Members have argued not that the Bill extends the scope of competition law, but that it extends the applicability of competition law to the NHS. It is not just the clauses on Monitor and competition law that do this, but others such as those that abolish the private patient cap on foundation trusts, and other Government policies, such as that of “any qualified provider”.
Andrew George
I hope that the hon. Lady shares my disappointment that, despite the fact that we have debated this issue for four hours and that I have tabled nine selected amendments, I have not had the opportunity to explain the purpose of those amendments—even though the Secretary of State referred to them in his opening remarks. Does she accept, for example, that amendment 1207 relates to clause 58(3) and balancing competition versus anti-competitive behaviour? The other amendments seek to give integration a greater priority for the regulator to enforce.
Liz Kendall
I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled those amendments and I understand his concerns. Opposition Members have consistently argued that the Bill threatens to pit doctor against doctor and service against service when they should be working together in the best interests of patients. Our view is that a far better approach than seeking to amend the Bill would be to delete part 3, because it is a fundamentally wrong way to treat our NHS. A few small changes to Monitor’s duties would not alter what the Bill seeks to do, and that is why amendment 10 proposes deletion of part 3.
The Bill will guarantee that the NHS will be treated as a full market, and the providers of services will, for the first time, be treated as undertakings for the purpose of competition law. The Secretary of State said that the Bill would not increase the applicability of competition law, but the Minister of State confirmed it when he told the Committee:
“UK and EU competition laws will increasingly become applicable…in a future where the majority of providers are likely to be classed as undertakings for the purposes of EU competition law, that law…will apply.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2011; c. 718.]
If the Government wish to claim that that would not be the effect of the Bill, they should publish any legal advice they have taken. Again, we have two different stories. The Minister of State says that the Government have taken legal advice, but in answers to parliamentary questions we hear that the Government have not taken legal advice. Members deserve to know what the advice is about the implications of this Bill.
NHS staff, patient groups and members of the public have very real fears about the consequences of the Government’s proposals and the full market that is envisaged in the Bill. The previous Government saw that giving patients more choice and a greater say in their treatment, and bringing different providers into the system—including from the private and voluntary sectors—can bring real benefits, including improving outcomes and efficiency, especially in elective care. But we always did that using clear national standards that this Government are abolishing and with the ability to manage the consequences that choice and competition bring.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat, let me say that the knife comes down at 8.30 pm and I would like the opportunity to give the Secretary of State five minutes at the end of this debate. I would therefore be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would watch the clock and bear that in mind.
Andrew George
No pressure, then. I will be as brief as I can. I tabled nine of the amendments in this group, and I had hoped to spend a little more time on them than I have been given this evening. I accept new clause 2, which I shall be supporting; the purpose of that proposal is primarily to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic, so that they do not get in the way of the lifeboats. I am happy to support new clause 2, although I have already made clear my views on the Bill and the general direction of the Government’s policy. I am not persuaded by many aspects of the Bill; indeed, I am very unhappy about them. I was very persuaded by the coalition agreement and felt that the balance of policy proposals in it was pretty much right. There were a number of debating points about the role and dynamics of “any willing provider”, but apart from that the themes were absolutely right. However, they were not reflected in the White Paper.
That said, the purpose of my amendments—the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) articulated this point far better, I am sure, than I am about to—is primarily to ensure that Monitor’s role to ensure that anti-competitive behaviour is kept in its box is balanced by looking at the impact of competitive behaviour that might undermine the ability of NHS services to collaborate.
The underlying purpose of amendments 1207 and 1208 is to neutralise or balance the new duty on Monitor to prevent anti-competitive practices that are against the interests of the people who use the services—in other words, patients—by also applying a duty to prevent anti-collaborative practices that would have the same effect. The Government say that that would result in Monitor preventing all practices that were against the interests of patients, but I disagree. Some unsafe practices would be neither competitive nor anti-competitive. The amendments would result in there no longer being a focus mainly on dealing with anti-competitive practices. I believe that that would strengthen the role of the regulator. This is a question of putting competition in its box, and it is important to ensure that it is put properly in its box, properly defined, and that the lid is put on. The purpose of the amendments is to achieve that outcome.
The Secretary of State told me, in response to an intervention relating to amendments seeking to secure a far better ability for Monitor to regulate the integration of services, that it should not be Monitor’s role simply to sustain services that are presumably otherwise unsustainable. The problem with that, in relation to my amendments 1205, 1209, 1229 and others, is that we need to ensure that we sustain the essential services. The important point here, which others have articulated, is that certain services clearly need to integrate. An example is acute emergency trauma centres. If the orthopaedic, paediatric or ophthalmology services were removed from such essential centres, their ability to deal with a wide range of emergencies would be fundamentally undermined. They serve populations of between 250,000 and 500,000 people—sometimes more—and they are absolutely essential. We must ensure that we do not end up with a regulator that allows them to be undermined by imposing a duty on them not to act in an anti-competitive manner.
The purpose of the amendments is to probe these issues, but the Government have made it clear that the NHS will no longer be the preferred provider, which leaves a question mark over the future of those essential and acute services. I will sit down now in order to give the Secretary of State more time than you requested for him, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to emphasise that I shall support the Government’s new clause. My amendments are probing amendments, but I wish that we had more time to debate these issues. This is very frustrating.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I just remind the hon. Gentleman that the timetable for the debate was not set by me. I am merely assisting the House to meet its deadlines.
Owen Smith
I do not intend to take long, because we must get on to the important next group of new clauses and amendments, which is on the private patient cap; there will be huge interest in that outside this place, and there is far too little time to discuss it. I shall say right at the outset that we will not press amendment 17, because we accept that, as the Minister said, it is effectively made redundant by other amendments that have been tabled.
In some respects, the amendments in the group before us tell the story of the Bill in microcosm. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have responded in two ways. One has been to bolt endless obfuscation and compromise on to the Bill to obscure its true intentions. There was clarity at the outset, in the Bill’s first iteration; it clearly aimed to break up a publicly owned, collaborative NHS and replace it with a competitive, market-driven NHS. The Government have sought to obscure that throughout the Bill’s progress, and have done so relatively effectively. Certainly, more gullible Government Members, perhaps even including the Deputy Prime Minister, have bought into the double-speak about this now being a question of preventing anti-competition, as opposed to promoting competition, but we Labour Members still do not buy that.
Nor do we buy the idea that the other amendments that we have considered today add clarity. In truth, they add to the confusion—the chaos, indeed—that will follow the implementation of the Bill. As the Minister has outlined, the clauses that we are considering effectively extend Monitor’s existing compliance and regulatory roles over foundation trusts to all FTs through to 2016. That is what the Future Forum recommended to Ministers, but they did not do that last time, although they did get rid of the arbitrary 2014 deadline that they had introduced. They are now going a step further and extending Monitor’s compliance functions. That might not be such a bad thing, and perhaps many people will agree with the idea; certainly the Future Forum will. The trouble with it, of course, is that it extends the critical conflict of interest that is at the heart of Monitor’s role.
There is a conflict between what is clearly Monitor’s principal function—as an economic regulator, designed to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and facilitate the exit of providers, such as hospitals, from the marketplace—and its compliance role, which is ostensibly about allowing FTs to flourish, and making sure that they do not fail. How will the Government deal with that apparent contradiction? To use their own words as set out in the original explanatory notes, how will they
“mitigate and manage potential conflicts of interest”
between the transitional functions and Monitor’s new functions? Well, rest easy, because the Government have made a very simple suggestion as to how Monitor should square that circle, which I am sure all Members will find satisfactory, as I do. Clause 62(3), subtly amended by Government amendment 89, explains that Monitor must simply
“ignore the functions it has under section…117 when exercising…its functions”
relating to competition, price-setting, or the licensing of NHS services.
So there we go: in Monitor there are to be Chinese walls, as Ministers colourfully put it in Committee. Monitor retains its role in trying to keep FTs from failing, but it also takes on a role in exiting them from the market and helping other providers—Bupa, perhaps, or Helios, which we know are sniffing around the Department of Health right now—to step into the breach. Chinese walls, competition and confusion: those are the key words for this botched Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Orders under section [Duration of transitional period] that apply to only some trusts
‘(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order under section [Duration of transitional period] in reliance on subsection (2)(b) of that section (“a section [Duration of transitional period](2)(b) order”), the Secretary of State must notify Monitor.
(2) Monitor, having received a notification under subsection (1), must set the criteria that are to be applied for the purpose of determining to which NHS foundation trusts the order should apply.
(3) Before setting criteria under subsection (2), Monitor must—
(a) consult the Care Quality Commission and such other persons as Monitor considers appropriate, and
(b) obtain the approval of the Secretary of State.
(4) If the Secretary of State approves the proposed criteria, Monitor must—
(a) publish the criteria,
(b) determine, by applying the criteria, to which trusts the order should apply,
(c) notify the Secretary of State of its determination, and
(d) publish a list of the trusts concerned.
(5) If the Secretary of State does not approve the proposed criteria, Monitor must propose revised criteria; and subsections (3)(b) and (4) apply in relation to the proposed revised criteria as they apply in relation to the criteria previously proposed.
(6) If, having received a notification under subsection (1), Monitor proposes to set criteria the same as those it set on the last occasion it received a notification under that subsection, it need not comply with subsection (3)(a).
(7) A section [Duration of transitional period](2)(b) order—
(a) must apply to all the trusts that are determined under subsection (4)(b) as being the trusts to which the order should apply (and to no others);
(b) may specify the trusts to which it applies by reference to their inclusion in the list published under subsection (4)(d).
(8) Subsection (9) applies where —
(a) a section [Duration of transitional period](2)(b) order is in force at a time when there is in existence an NHS foundation trust authorised after 1 April 2014, and
(b) the initial two-year period in relation to that trust has yet to come to an end.
(9) Monitor must—
(a) determine, by applying the criteria it applied under subsection (4)(b), whether section 117 should continue to have effect in relation to the trust after the end of the initial two-year period,
(b) notify the Secretary of State of its determination, and
(c) publish its determination.
(10) If Monitor determines under subsection (9)(a) that section117 should so continue to have effect, the trust is to be treated as if it had been authorised on or before 1 April 2014 and as if the order referred to in subsection (7)(a) applied to it; and section [Duration of transitional period] (5) is accordingly to apply in relation to the trust.
(11) If Monitor determines under subsection (9)(a) that section 117 should not so continue to have effect, section 117 ceases to have effect in relation to the trust immediately after the end of the initial two-year period.’.—(Paul Burstow.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Repeal of sections [Duration of transitional period] and [Orders under section [Duration of transitional period] that apply to only some trusts]
‘(1) Sections [Duration of transitional period] and [Orders under section [Duration of transitional period] that apply to only some trusts] are repealed immediately after section 117 is repealed; and in consequence of that—
(a) in section 62(2)(a), omit “or under sections 117 and [Orders under section [Duration of transitional period] that apply to only some trusts] of this Act (imposition of licence conditions on NHS foundation trusts during transitional period)”,
(b) omit section62(3),
(c) in section 94(4), after paragraph (a) insert “and”,
(d) in section 94(4), omit paragraph (c) and the preceding “and”, and
(e) omit section 302(5)(e) and (8A).
(2) This section is repealed immediately after sections [Duration of transitional period] and [Orders under section [Duration of transitional period] that apply to only some trusts] are repealed.’.—(Paul Burstow.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
NHS Foundations Trusts: phasing out of provision of private health care
‘The Secretary of State must make regulations which provide for NHS Foundation Trusts to be prevented from providing services other than those of the health service in England within three years of Royal Assent of this Act.’.—(Andrew George.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—Private health care: rules—
‘(1) Section 44 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (Private healthcare) is amended as follows.
(2) Insert new subsection (A1) as follows—
“(A1) NHS Foundation Trusts must act in accordance with the following rules when carrying out their functions under this section—
(a) NHS Foundation Trusts are not permitted to operate NHS functions or contracts in a manner which promotes their private healthcare operation;
(b) any private healthcare service offered should only be within the provision of the services and procedures which are not also duplicated by the Trust’s NHS functions or contracts; and
(c) the Trust should at all times operate any private healthcare interest in a manner which in no way conflicts with its responsibility to provide unfettered access of its NHS patients to its NHS services.”’.
Amendment 1165, page 159, line 24, leave out clause 168.
Andrew George
The new clauses deal with a totemic issue that has bedevilled the debate throughout and raised concerns. The question whether to raise the cap or leave it where it is is a ham-fisted reaction to our current situation in the Report stage of a re-committed Bill. There should be an opportunity for further consideration, and I hope the issue will be examined in another place.
There has been much hyperbole about the privatisation of the NHS and other themes that have run through the debate. The general concern is that, as a result of various genies being let out of bottles and caps being lifted, we will end up with an NHS driven more by concern with private profit than by concern with matters of patient care. There is a slippery slope, of which that issue is symptomatic, throughout the Bill.
The purpose of the new clauses is to address that issue and retain the cap to ensure that the matter is kept under appropriate control. The rough and tumble of political debate means that we will end up scoring points off each other and asking who introduced foundation trusts and so on. We have been through that playground before and I do not intend to go in that direction, but I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to explore the matter. We do not have much time so I will not detain the House unnecessarily.
The removal of the cap will give more scope for NHS trusts to compete in the market, which will make them more likely to be considered undertakings for competition law purposes, even in respect of NHS services which the hospitals claim their private work subsidises, thus allowing competition law to reach further and more firmly into the NHS. The Government briefing does not even dispute that fact, as far as I can see. Also, if NHS foundation trusts can muscle in on the private market, rather like the BBC, private providers will feel more justified in arguing for the right to compete for far more NHS services, and the courts may well agree.
New clause 19 recognises that pay beds in the NHS represent a challenge, both ethically—it is about how beds can be reserved for paying patients in the same hospitals where poorer patients with higher needs must wait—and with regard to competition law. It would phase out the reserving of beds for paying patients in NHS hospitals by 2015.
New clause 22 would put a bar on foundation trusts offering private services where that would compete with their NHS provision. I certainly know, having undertaken surveys of the NHS 12 years ago, that the specialties with the longest waiting times—I will not say which, but Members might guess—happened to be those in which the most private practice was going on. One might argue that the private practice resulted from the long waiting times, but the long waiting times could have been part of a system that enabled the private sector to flourish. I fully accept—to save the Minister a lot of time in his response—that the new clause is technically very deficient, so I will not press it to a vote, but I want to express my concern and probe the issue in debate.
I know that there are ethical considerations here and that the General Medical Council and others would not only frown on the kind of practices I am implying might go on, but would rule against them. The concern is that the trusts, or those working for them, might be seduced into behaving in ways that drive their NHS patients into the arms of their private wings. Once we go down that road, many conundrums will arise and will need to be sorted out. I do not believe that the Government entirely have a handle on the issue, which is why I believe that simply lifting the cap, despite all the justifications they have given, needs a serious rethink.
Mr Simon Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall—I mean the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—for moving the new clauses and amendment, especially for the constructive and reasonable way in which he did so. He raised several issues and, if I understand him correctly, he sees the amendment as a probing amendment that also puts across several of his concerns about this issue. I hope to deal with the main thrust of his concern in my contribution.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for her contribution. Her amendment and indeed her comments were more controversial and I have far more disagreement with several of the contentious things that she said, although she will be unaware that I am saying that because she is not listening. She might argue that she is not missing much.
I shall start with a fact. It may have got lost in the telling, but I assume that the hon. Lady realises that there is no cap at the moment for NHS trusts. There is only a cap for foundation trusts. She has not seen the difficulties that she forecasts in NHS trusts, and I hope—although I am not confident of success—that I will convince her that her fears are unfounded.
The Government believe that keeping the cap would damage the NHS and patients’ interests. Removing it would allow foundation trusts to earn more income to improve NHS services, and I will address the safeguards that will be in place to ensure that the armageddon that the hon. Lady predicted will not happen and that my hon. Friend’s concerns are needless.
Removing the cap will enable foundation trusts to earn more money to improve NHS services, and those trusts are telling us that they must be freed from what is an unfair, arbitrary, unnecessary and blunt legal instrument. I do not want to go too far down memory lane, but I must remind the House that there was no intellectual case for bringing in the cap in the first place. It was introduced in 2002-03 in the relevant legislation as a sop to old Labour. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) says that he has moved on, but he still has the Neanderthal tendencies of old Labour—[Interruption.] Before the Opposition Whip says anything, I should point out that the right hon. Gentleman takes that as a compliment. I am being very nice to him and probably enhancing his street cred. He would not thank the Whip for diminishing that.
The point is that the cap was not brought in after some coherent intellectual argument about protecting the NHS or preventing private patients from overrunning the NHS. It was brought in because the then Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, and the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, were having considerable problems with some of their Back Benchers on this issue. To avoid a defeat on the Floor of the House, they brought in the cap as a sop to those Back Benchers to buy them off. But it was not introduced consistently for both NHS trusts and foundation trusts—just for the latter.
The cap is arbitrary and unfair. Several NHS trusts that are not subject to the private patient income cap have private incomes well in excess of many foundation trusts. Last year, four of the top 10 private income earners were NHS trusts—that is, without a cap. A few FTs have high private incomes simply because they did a few years ago. The cap locks FTs into keeping private income below 2002-03 levels and means that last year about 75% of FTs were severely restricted by caps of 1.5% or less. Meanwhile, patients at the Royal Marsden benefit from its cap being 31%, and it has consistently been rated as higher performing by the Care Quality Commission.
Andrew George
The Minister is making an interesting point. Will he elaborate further on the proportions of the private work to which he refers? Is that private work for private patients or private work for research, innovation and training, which are important functions of hospitals but are often lost in the debate?
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but the simple answer is that it is a combination of both.
The cap is unnecessary. I remind Opposition Members that the original proposal was not to have one. To suggest that NHS patients would be disadvantaged if the cap was removed, as the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury did, is pure and simple scaremongering. Existing and new safeguards will protect them. NHS commissioners will remain responsible for securing timely and high-quality care for NHS patients. The Bill will make FTs more accountable and transparent to their public and staff, allowing us to require separate accounts for NHS and private income and giving communities and governors greater powers to hold FTs to account in performing their main duty, which is to care for NHS patients.
Diana Johnson
I support amendment 1165. Although I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, his comments did not persuade me. The proposal to remove the cap is an example of the shambolic way in which the Bill has been presented. There seems to me to be very little evidence to back up what the Minister thinks might happen. He thinks that everything will be OK, but the NHS has never been in the position of having to make £20 billion-worth of efficiency savings—or cuts, which is what they really are. I believe that when the cap is removed, trusts will want to increase the income that they can obtain from private patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made the good point that when waiting lists lengthen—which we know they are already beginning to do—those who pay will do so in order to receive the medical treatment that they want.
After 1997, NHS waiting lists in Hull fell to their lowest ever level. A private hospital that sat in the middle of an NHS trust—it was then the Hull and East Riding acute trust—was sold to the NHS. It had not been getting enough business, because the NHS was doing so well. We have heard in today’s debate about the high level of support for the NHS and about the current high levels of satisfaction, and I do not think that we should take this step.
Earlier, I spoke of the lack of principles that the Liberal Democrats were exhibiting yet again in respect of the NHS. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) say that he was not doctrinaire on the issue. So the hon. Gentleman has no principles, and is not doctrinaire either. I recall that, in 2010, the Liberal Democrats campaigned in my constituency on a platform of saving the NHS, not increasing the number of private patients. I think that when this measure reaches the House of Lords, Liberal Democrat peers must stand up and be counted, because it is a disgrace that Liberal Democrat Members should support it today.
My main concern relates to evidence. Where is the evidence that removing the cap will work? I do not think that the safeguards exist to ensure that NHS patients will be protected, and I know that waiting lists are rising, which means that people in my constituency, and in poorer parts of the country, will not be able to gain the access to health care that they deserve. I believe that removing the cap is entirely wrong.
Andrew George
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), but I do not think she did herself or her party any favours in trying to persuade my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me to follow her or her party’s lead by launching a completely unacceptable attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh).
The Minister seemed to be trying to win me over by describing me as “the hon. Member for Cornwall”. His description stimulated my Cornish imperialist tendencies, and I was tempted to change that to “Cornwall and bits of England”. However, I shall leave it for another Bill, perhaps one relating to boundary reviews.
In his response, the Minister said that the cap was a “blunt instrument”. I acknowledged that in my opening remarks: it is indeed a blunt instrument, which does not achieve what I think we all want it to achieve. However, although the current situation is not satisfactory, neither is the proposal to lift the cap. That too is a blunt instrument, as was made clear by many speakers this evening. I do not think the Minister entirely acknowledged that this is a conundrum that needs to be resolved. As I have said before, the Government are right to address the issue and are doing so with the best of intentions, but they have come up with the wrong answer. Indeed, lifting the cap is not an answer at all. Further work is needed, and deleting clause 168 would be a good start.
As I have said, mine are probing proposals. I will support amendment 1165, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Southern Cross Care Homes
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Burstow
That is exactly what the Government are doing. We have had those discussions with the devolved Administrations, and officials are engaged with the landlords and lenders to ensure that they are doing just that. I look forward to answering the urgent question shortly.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is acknowledged that the rising rates of norovirus are worse where there is a shortage of acute hospital beds. How does the Secretary of State square the understandable desire to get on top of hospital-acquired infections with his zeal to reduce acute hospital beds?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will understand that each hospital trust or acute trust must be responsible for ensuring that there is not an excessive length of stay for patients and that it has the ability to isolate patients if necessary. Norovirus is one circumstance in which trusts often have to open additional capacity. In my experience of hospitals, that is precisely what is generally done. There is an ability to open new capacity if necessary when norovirus strikes.
NHS Future Forum
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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—
NHS Reorganisation
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Maternity Services
Andrew George Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.”
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.
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.