Health Services in Staffordshire

Andrew Griffiths Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my hon. Friend. He has been a huge support in all these matters, which have at times been extremely difficult. He is absolutely right. I have come across cases of agency workers charging absolutely extortionate fees. I could give the Minister in private—he would be shocked to hear them—one or two examples of what I consider to be close to blackmail.

Another question is raised: if these important services are moving, without mention in the information to my constituents, are other moves planned of which we have no information? The loss of emergency surgery, consultant-led maternity, full level 3 critical care and in-patient paediatrics was—even if most were the wrong decisions—at least clearly set out and communicated with my constituents. These acute in-patient services were not. What we therefore need, and what I have been asking for since last summer, is a clear summary of exactly what services will be available and where.

Of course, this is primarily the responsibility of the UHNM Trust. However, it is grossly unfair to place this burden entirely on it. It has been asked to do a huge job in bringing together two acute hospitals, one of which has been the subject of a major public inquiry. It needs the full support of the NHS through the NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England. I am asking the Minister to make it his responsibility to do precisely that.

I will now turn to the tender for cancer and end-of-life services throughout the west of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. The proposal has been developed by NHS England, the four clinical commissioning groups covering North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and surrounds, and Cannock Chase, and Macmillan Cancer Care. The objective is clear: to improve cancer outcomes, which are currently below the average for England and well below the European best, so that survival rates are among the best in England by 2025 and subsequently among the best in Europe.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the fantastic work he has done over the last five years, both for his constituents and for people across Staffordshire. We welcome the work he does, and I am sure he would join me in thanking the doctors, nurses and clinical staff across Staffordshire who have worked so hard to get improved care across our county. Does he agree that we still have a fragile healthcare economy in Staffordshire? I managed to secure £8 million for East Staffordshire CCG thanks to the help of the previous Health Minister, but that is for just one year, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to move towards fairer funding in Staffordshire?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and reiterate his remarks about the excellent work done in my constituency by staff at the County hospital to recover the situation, which a few years ago was extremely difficult, to one where the quality of care offered is of a very high standard.

To return to cancer and end-of-life services, the real concern has been over the method being used. To quote Macmillan:

“We think a procurement process is the best way to integrate the fragmented cancer and end of life services we have in Staffordshire. A procurement process is needed because at the moment there is no one organisation with overall control of cancer or end of life services.”

My argument has always been: in that case, what are CCGs for? They are there to commission, so why can they not commission? In the last Parliament, we gave them the ability to work together to procure services, so why cannot the four CCGs involved, together with Macmillan, simply make that happen? The answer I was given at the time was that the constraints on CCGs’ own administration costs—a reducing amount of funding per head—meant that it was impossible. Sometimes I am puzzled. We see this all over Government and have done for many years and across many Departments: we constrain spending on so-called bureaucracy and then, in order to get necessary things done, pay large sums of money to consultants to do precisely the kind of bureaucratic work that we forbid the experts from doing—in this case the CCGs—but, because it is called consultancy or programme work rather than overheads, it is allowed. There is a problem that needs to be solved—I do not deny that—and it affects the lives of my constituents and those of other Members, so it must be solved.

Macmillan says about the first two years of the contract:

“The main responsibility of the integrator will be to address the current inadequate data about pathway activity and the real cost of this activity. Much increased investment over the last decade has arguably been wasted by poor contract accountability and a lack of reliable data and analytics.”

That is important, but it is a research and advisory role. I have no problem with the CCGs calling in experts to offer them such research and advice, whether it is a private company, university or, indeed, another arm of the NHS. A fee will be paid for that work. Again, I have no problem with that, but I would like the Minister to say how much it is likely to be. As local MPs, we have a right to know, on behalf of our constituents, or at least have a rough idea.

According to Macmillan, after 18 months the integrator —I would say consultant—will be expected to

“present a more detailed strategy as to how they expect to achieve improved service outcomes. If the evidence is robust, arrangements will be made for all contracts to be transferred to the Service Integrator from the beginning of year 3. If not, the contract with the Integrator could be terminated and the Service integrator will be required to repay all (or a significant part) of their fee to date.”

That is where I do not see the logic. What makes an organisation that is good at research and advice the right body to run cancer services for our constituents? Why can it not simply be thanked for its advice and that advice, if it is good, be followed by the CCGs, working in co-operation with the providers? The risk is that the vital work that patients, the CCGs and Macmillan have done, with the very best of intentions, will be damaged by contractual arrangements that do not make sense and may put a private organisation with a somewhat different ethos in charge of commissioning NHS providers for services, rather than the other way round.

I have no problem at all with a private organisation producing a much better plan for cancer and end-of-life services, nor do I have a problem with social enterprises or private providers being involved in delivering certain elements of that plan, as they do now and have done under Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments. However, I do not see the logic in the organisation producing that plan becoming another bureaucratic tier between the CCGs, providers and patients. I therefore ask the Minister to take up the proposed contract with the CCGs.

The state of general practice is gradually becoming critical in our area. Many GPs are retiring or approaching retirement. I welcome the Government’s plans to train more GPs, but we will also have to train more medical students or rely on recruiting from overseas.