Children’s Heart Surgery

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of his statement. He was right to begin by reminding the House of the events that led to the Safe and Sustainable review. Terrible failings in the care of very sick children at the Bristol royal infirmary in the 1980s and 1990s led Sir Ian Kennedy to call for expertise to be concentrated in fewer surgical sites—a call supported by more recent events, including those at the John Radcliffe hospital in 2010. Since Bristol, Sir Ian’s important conclusion has had the full support of the health professions and of those on both sides of this House. As we digest what the Secretary of State has just said, two considerations must remain at the forefront of our minds. First, that this issue must continue to transcend party politics. Secondly, that the complexity it presents should not derail our determination to deliver the safest possible care for children in England.

That said, changes of this magnitude must be able to command public confidence and consensus, but that has not emerged since the decision on site selection by the Joint Committee. I fully support the reduction in sites, but when the decision was published I expressed concern about the distribution of the seven sites, which was skewed towards the western half of England and left a large swath of the east, from Newcastle to London, without a surgical centre. For a family in Hull or Lincoln, already at their wits’ end with worry, the wrench of leaving home to travel hundreds of miles, along with the cost of accommodation and time off work, would add to high levels of stress and anxiety. That is why the issue has aroused such strength of feeling, particularly across Yorkshire, the Humber and the east midlands—a concern well voiced and represented by Members throughout the House.

Although clinical safety must predominate, does the Secretary of State agree that the NHS needs to give more consideration to public access and travel times when reconfiguring services? The truth is that the NHS has a habit of minimising these concerns in all reconfigurations—in this case, as the IRP report points out, the Joint Committee considered access the least important factor. The IRP concluded, surely rightly, that

“the decision used a flawed and incomplete analysis of accessibility”.

Going forward, will the Secretary of State ensure that this is corrected and that access is made a significant factor in any future decision?

Turning to the review itself, the Secretary of State will know that one of the main concerns has been that the mortality data were not given enough weight. Although decisions of this kind cannot be based on death rates alone, we agree with John Deanfield, director of the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, who wrote in his letter to NHS England in April:

“Mortality is only one measure of quality, but currently is the most…available outcome.”

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these data will feature more prominently in the further process of review announced today?

My main concern with what the Secretary of State has just announced is the proposal to link the children’s review with the review of adult heart services, and the implications that might have for the timetable. The Secretary of State will know that there are around 30 centres across England carrying out adult heart surgery. The seven selected children’s centres are not all co-located with adult heart surgery and, indeed, a number of them are on specialist children sites, so the link between children’s and adult heart surgery is not clear. Is there not a real danger that by linking the review with adult heart surgery, the Secretary of State is introducing more complexity and, potentially, controversy, risking a loss of focus and more delay? By broadening out in this way, is there not a danger that we will lose the consensus that has already been gained over the future of children’s heart surgery? I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would say more on those points.

This decision will also have implications for the timetable of the children’s review and it will not have escaped the House’s notice that that Secretary of State has not announced a clear timetable. Can he set out more precisely a timetable for the decision making that will now follow? He says that the review will be concluded by the autumn. What people will want to know is when the decisions will be made and implemented. Can he say more about that? The statement sets out a major role for NHS England and questions may be asked about the independence of the review he has announced. What guarantees can he give that NHS England will operate independently of vested interests linked to the 10 sites?

Finally, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot risk any loss of confidence in the process, damaging confidence in all 10 existing sites. Will he say more about what he will do in the interim to support all existing units and ensure that there is no loss of expertise?

In conclusion, it is, of course, essential that the public have confidence in the process and the final decision. Balanced against that, however, is the fact that unnecessary delay will not bring the best results for the children who most need our help. The Secretary of State is right to say that we need a process that is seen to be fair by all concerned, but, equally, a point will come when decisions must be made. In the end, I want to assure the Secretary of State that when he comes to face up to those difficult decisions, he will have our support in doing so.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of his comments and the bipartisan way in which he has approached these issues. I particularly welcome his last point. We have many debates in this House, but this is one issue where we are completely at one. If there is a difficult decision to be made that will save children’s lives, we must have the courage to take it. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support on that.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree with me that while this issue transcends party politics, it is one from which all of us—on both sides of the House, throughout the NHS and indeed in local authorities—have things to learn. I think that the biggest issue for us all to consider is the sheer amount of time that it has taken. The original concerns about what happened in Bristol were raised in 1989. I am pleased to say that they have been dealt with, but there are broader, system-wide lessons to be learnt. It took until 2001 for Sir Ian Kennedy’s report to be completed, it took until 2008 for the Safe and Sustainable review to begin, and now, in 2013, we are having to suspend the process yet again. What has happened is not the right outcome for children, and we must all learn the lessons from that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned site selection. I consider that to be one of the most crucial areas in which the process was flawed. Whether we should involve adult heart services is a difficult question, but one of the key recommendations in the IRP’s report is that they should be taken into account. I think that we should pay attention to that recommendation, because the panel thought about it very carefully. The reason for its view was that the same surgeons often operate on children and on adults. Adults also have congenital heart conditions that require operations. The panel also says that if the best outcomes are to be achieved for children, services must be concentrated in teams that have four full-time surgeons, provide specialist training, and conduct research. The knock-on impact of what is happening in adult heart services is relevant.

I agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman said about mortality data, but I know that he will also understand the difficulty of publishing such data on a very small number of cases when they may not be statistically significant. That was one of the great debates that we had over the temporary suspension of services at Leeds. We must be careful not to publish data that could lead the public to make the wrong conclusions. In principle, however, transparency is the most important thing for us to bring about.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the timetable. I think that we must get on with this process: I do not want to delay it any more than is necessary. I have talked extensively to NHS England about how it should be approached. NHS England—along with all the stakeholders involved—needs time in which to digest the contents of the IRP report, which was published only today. I consider that the minimum period that I need to allow it to come up with the timetable is until the end of next month. I appreciate that that is six weeks, but I think that it is a sensible period. I certainly want to be able to publish an indicative timetable by then, so that people can understand how the process will continue and how we will learn the lessons.

I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in my statement should undermine the public’s confidence in the brilliant work being done by heart surgeons all over the country for adults and children. Our heart surgery survival rates have improved so much that they are now some of the best in Europe, and we can be very proud of the work that those surgeons do, day in, day out. However, that does not mean that we cannot strive to be even better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

As I said, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the way funding works at the moment. We are in a very difficult situation because if we were to move closer to the formula proposed by ACRA—I am sure he would agree with me that it is right that it is done independently of Ministers, and in this case it is done under NHS England—it would mean cuts in real terms for the budgets in other areas. Given the pressures overall in the NHS, that was obviously a decision that NHS England was very reluctant to make.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The last Government matched health funding to health need and reduced the gap in male life expectancy and infant mortality, but this Government have reduced the weighting for health inequalities. The Secretary of State’s public health allocations mean that the areas he has identified today with the biggest health challenges do not get a fair share. The area with longest male life expectancy, Kensington and Chelsea, gets £133 per head, but Liverpool gets £89, Manchester £86, Luton £61, and Slough just £37. If he really wants to do something about health inequalities, should he not match his words with deeds and give more to the areas with the greatest challenges?

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. The budget for public health is also decided by an independent body, and we gave everyone a real-terms increase and then used any remaining money to even out the differences, to get everyone as close as possible to the independent formula. But if we are talking about spending, I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to say precisely whether he stands by his assertion that Governments should cut spending on the NHS by £600 million—[Interruption.] He says he has never said it before, but actually, up till now he has always said that it was irresponsible for the Government to increase spending in real terms. We have increased it; we have increased it by £600 million. He needs to come clean on whether he still wants to cut the NHS budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that local authorities have a key role to play in integrated care. That is why in April this year the Government set up local health and wellbeing boards, which will bring about greater integration of care between the NHS, housing providers and social care locally. That will hopefully ensure that across the country we have a much greater focus on local health care needs and, in particular, on better supporting older people and people with long-term disabilities at home and keeping them out of hospital.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

A moment ago the Minister mentioned more elderly people coming in through A and E, and I want to present the House with new, deeply troubling evidence of that. Nobody wants to think of a very frail elderly person with no other support at home having to come to A and E by ambulance, but that is what increasing numbers of elderly people are having to do. Buried in the general A and E figures is an appalling increase in people aged over 90 coming to A and E by blue-light ambulance, which is up by 66%, equivalent to more than 100,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is an appalling failure and a sign of something seriously wrong in the way we care for older people, and it is set to get worse as home care is cut further this year. Will he investigate that increase urgently and act now to prevent the collapse of social care?

[Dr Poulter]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—there is almost an outbreak of consensus across the Dispatch Boxes on this issue. We both recognise, rightly, that there is a long-term challenge in providing more integrated, joined-up care to better look after older people. However, it is ironic that he should raise that concern, because a previous Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Warner, has made the case very clearly that the previous Government failed to invest adequately in elderly care throughout their time in office. That is why this Government—I hope that we can count on the right hon. Gentleman’s support for this—are investing in health and social care, more integrated services at a local level through health and wellbeing boards and—

Accident and Emergency Waiting Times

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned about the growing pressure on Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments across the country over recent months; notes this week’s report from the King’s Fund which concludes that waiting times in A&E recently hit a nine-year high; further notes that in the Labour Government’s last year in office 98 per cent of patients were seen within four hours; believes that a combination of factors lies behind the extra pressure on hospitals but that severe cuts to social care budgets are one of the most significant causes; is further concerned that one in three hospitals in England say they do not have sufficient staffing levels to deal safely with demand on services; further notes that over 4,000 nursing posts have been lost from the NHS since May 2010 and that a recent survey by the Health Service Journal revealed that a further round of front-line clinical job losses are planned for the coming year; further believes that the Government has failed to show sufficient urgency in dealing with these problems; and calls on the Government to bring forward an urgent plan to ease pressure on hospitals by, amongst other things, re-allocating £1.2 billion of the 2012-13 Department of Health underspend to support social care in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and ensuring adequate staffing levels at every hospital in England.

Since the turn of the year, the Opposition have been warning the Government about building pressure in A and E departments, and yesterday there was confirmation of just how bad things have got. This year, waiting times in A and E hit a nine-year high, according to the King’s Fund. The pressure is not confined to A and E, however, and wherever we look we can see warning signs: hospitals operating with close to 100% bed occupancy, way beyond safe recommended levels; a treatment tent in a car park; long queues of ambulances outside A and E, double the number waiting longer than 30 minutes; a huge spike in the number of A and E diverts, where ambulances are turned away from units that cannot accept any more patients; reports of some hospitals issuing more black alerts in the past year than in the previous 10 years combined; more cancelled operations than for a decade; and a 30% increase in bed days lost to delayed discharges because care plans cannot be put in place, leaving older patients stranded on the ward and A and E unable to admit them.

The evidence is clear: this health and care system is showing serious signs of distress. In truth, A and E is the barometer of the system, and problems or blockages anywhere will soon show up in A and E as the pressure backs up. The situation requires decisive action and a comprehensive plan, both of which have been distinctly lacking in the Government’s response so far.

Today the Prime Minister complacently implied that the problems had been fixed, but for 34 of the 38 weeks this Secretary of State has been in post, major A and Es have missed the Government’s lowered A and E target. Today, six in 10 trusts are warning that next winter will be even worse. The Government’s response to date has been totally inadequate for the scale and urgency of the problems. First, they came to the House and denied there was a problem. On 15 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) stated that

“patients are being treated in a much more timely manner than under the previous Government.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 720.]

An inaccurate statement without any basis in fact.

As the pressure built, it was clear that that line would not hold, so the Secretary of State’s spin operation began. He said that the root cause of the pressure was the 2004 GP contract and changes to out-of-hours care. One must ask how the Secretary of State pushed that line with such confidence, given that a freedom of information request from his Department revealed that the first time he went to an A and E as Secretary of State was on 3 April—a full six months after he was appointed. Even then, it was the A and E within walking distance of this building. Did he just repeat back on camera what the first person he met said to him?

Throughout the early months of 2013 the NHS was going through the worst winter for a decade, yet the Secretary of State did not bother to visit any A and E department to see for himself the ambulance queues, the patients held on trolleys, or the staff stretched to breaking point. Just weeks before his first visit to A and E, he told us that hospitals were “coasting”. What an unbelievable statement. Would he have dared to say that if he had actually visited an A and E beforehand?

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the pressures on A and E comes from this Government’s cuts to adult social care? We all know that if old people are not given care in their own homes they are more likely to end up in hospital, yet the Government have cut more than £2.6 billion from adult social care, and more than 230,000 people are now not getting help, compared with four years ago.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Two-thirds of NHS finance directors have identified social care and its collapse as the single biggest driver of the pressure on A and E. The Government do not like to talk about that because of the record my hon. Friend just outlined, and I will come to that later in my remarks.

The Secretary of State visited his first A and E in April, and NHS England requested action plans only on 9 May, when hospitals had already been battling with the problem for months. It is simply not good enough. The NHS needs leadership and he has not provided it; instead, he has stuck to the spin. He continued to blame the GP contract, even when experts queued up to tell him it was not the cause of the problem. The NHS Confederation, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the King’s Fund and the Foundation Trust Network all told him that the causes lay elsewhere, but he was not listening because it did not suit his argument. When the NHS needed a Secretary of State, it was left with a spin doctor-in-chief.

That brings us to the crux of this debate and the charge that I lay directly at the Secretary of State’s door. By persisting with spin and by diverting attention elsewhere, the real causes of this crisis have been left neglected.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the graph of A and E attendances, he will see that the figure was pretty constant at 14 million until 2003-04, when it rose steadily to 21 million. Why does he think that there was that big rise in A and E attendances at the time of the change to the GP contract?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

The spin continues, doesn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker? Let me explain why that happened. [Interruption.] I will explain if the hon. Gentleman will listen. Perhaps he should look at the subject in more detail before he comes to this place and makes a comment like that. In 2003-04 the statistics changed, and visits to walk-in centres and minor injuries units were added to the figures. If he read the King’s Fund analysis of trends in A and E over the past decade, he would see that it says that very clearly. Perhaps the next time he comes to a debate like this he might do his homework.

In the vacuum that the Government have left, it has been left to Labour to show the leadership that the NHS desperately needs. Last week, Labour convened an A and E summit here in Parliament to refocus minds on the real underlying causes of this pressure. We wanted to give front-line staff from all over England the chance to tell us in their own words about the reality on the ground right now and to suggest practical ways in which the pressure might be relieved. Now, today, we bring this urgent debate to the House to shock the Government out of their complacency and to force them to act on what was said at the summit. There were two overriding messages that all politicians would do well to hear: first, the pressure in A and E is an issue for the whole health and care system; and secondly, there is no one simplistic, single cause but a range of complex underlying factors.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Let me bring a note of conciliation to the debate. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the nation had more people who are knowledgeable about first aid, fewer people would make their way to A and Es in the first place?

[Andy Burnham]

That is a laudable aim. I do not think it is going to solve the A and E crisis right here, right now, but I do not disagree with it as an aim.

Drawing on what was said at the summit, I have developed an A and E rescue plan with five practical proposals. [Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear it. Okay, later on they can give me their plan. I am putting forward a plan and calling this debate. They are not calling this debate. Why are they not doing something to take a grip on the situation? It is no good just sitting back and saying, “Oh”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that people on both sides of the House do, and all the shouting is not going to allow any of us to do that.

[Andy Burnham]

It has been left to us to call this debate, and now Government Members sit there and groan. Well, it is not good enough. They are going to hear what I have to say because they need to do something about what is happening.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Before my right hon. Friend gets on to his plan, may I ask him a question? Given the chaos that he has described throughout the whole country—in London, ambulance queues have doubled in the past couple of years—why does he think that the Secretary of State believes it is sensible to downgrade the A and E service at Lewisham and divert tens of thousands of people to other hospitals where the ambulances are queuing all down the road?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My right hon. Friend rightly identifies some of the contradictory chaos that now passes for Government health policy. I will deal directly with her point later in my speech.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

In the preceding debate, the Government tabled an amendment of great worth answering all the points with regard to badgers, but there is no amendment for this debate. They have no answer and are not prepared to put anything on paper about how to get over this current crisis in A and E. Does that not speak volumes?

[Andy Burnham]

The Government have more to say about badgers than about the current crisis that NHS staff up and down the country are dealing with. That says a lot about this Government.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are no simple answers. Does he agree that one of the pressures that is adding to the problems in A and E is that £3 billion has been taken out of the NHS to fund a reorganisation under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that nobody needs and nobody wants?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree entirely. That decision was catastrophic for the NHS. Not only did it siphon £3 billion out of the front line to pay for back-office restructuring; it took people’s eyes of the ball. When they should have been focusing on the front line and patient care, they were worrying about their jobs and which organisations they would work in. The Government were warned about this reorganisation and I will come on to that. I have new evidence, which I will put before the House today, that says that this Government were explicitly warned about the risks to A and E of proceeding with their reorganisation at a time of financial stress. It is pretty damning and I will come on to it later.

What I want to do today is achieve something for NHS staff watching this debate. Let us try to reach some agreement about the causes and the practical steps that now should be taken. First, on social care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has mentioned, the survey of NHS financial directors says that this is the single biggest cause of the pressure. More than £1 billion has already been taken out of budgets already by this Government, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services says that councils are planning further spending and services cuts this year. This is simply not sustainable. It is a false economy. Social care is the preventative part of the care system. If the Government continue to hammer councils, the problem will simply end up on the doorstep of the NHS and it will get bigger and bigger. The human cost will be huge.

We heard at last week’s summit that more and more people with dementia are presenting at A and E. That is intensely sad and it is the wrong place for them to be.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most upsetting comment made at the summit was by the nurse at Kingston who told us of a lady with dementia who, when she is hungry or lonely, phones 999 for an ambulance and says that she has heart pain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

The room went quiet when the nurse spoke at the summit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being at the summit during the parliamentary recess to hear that nurse. It was a valuable event. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the loss of simple support in the home for people such as that woman means that they are left with no alternative but to go to A and E or the hospital as the last resort. That is the false economy that I am talking about. By ransacking council budgets to pay for their NHS spending plans, the Government have left this system with major problems that they urgently need to address. The worst thing of all is that they have left older people with no option but to end up in hospital.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. He is absolutely right: areas such as Stoke-on-Trent have had their budgets slashed and destroyed year on year under this Government. In Stoke-on-Trent, which is the third hardest hit area, the local authority is expected to spread the money it does have even more thinly across a population that is not only deprived, but ageing. The sniping and comments from those of the Government Front Bench are totally inappropriate. Does my right hon. Friend know when the Government got the NHS to write to accident and emergency departments to ask for their plans?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of Members want to speak, so we need very short interventions.

[Andy Burnham]

That is part of my point. NHS England wrote to clinical commissioning groups on 9 May. What is going on here? They were all in the chaos of reorganisation until then—no one could have received a letter, because CCGs were not in place. In the crucial period between January and March, when the NHS was under intense pressure, primary care trusts were on the way out and CCGs were not in place. As a result, the NHS was in limbo; at the precise moment that it needed grip and leadership, it was drifting. That is absolutely shocking.

As I have said repeatedly, the Government must act to shore up social care in England, which is collapsing. Our solution is for the Secretary of State to use about half of last year’s underspend in the NHS, £1.2 billion, to provide emergency support to councils over the next two years to maintain integrated, home-based support. As he knows, the Budget revealed a £2.2 billion underspend in last year’s Department of Health budget. No use was made of the budget exchange scheme. In other words, he handed that money back to the Treasury. I call on him to reconsider his decision, reopen negotiations with the Treasury and act to prevent a social care emergency.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Between 2005 and 2010, the population of over-65s grew by 730,000 and the population of over-80s—the very elderly—grew by 27%. Why did the previous Government increase the budget for adult social care by less than 1% a year to cope with that additional demand?

[Andy Burnham]

Oh dear, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is hard for this Government, who have decimated social care, to lecture us about it. Between 2005 and 2010, A and E waits fell. That was after the GP contract was signed. Let us have some facts. We did much to support social care and to deliver an NHS with the lowest ever waiting lists and the highest ever patient satisfaction.

The second point in our A and E rescue plan concerns safe staffing levels—another aspect that we have raised repeatedly with the Secretary of State.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

All over the country, NHS staff are saying that there are not enough people on the ward to deal safely with the pressure that they are under. The College of Emergency Medicine has warned of a “workforce crisis” in A and E and of

“a lack of sufficient numbers of middle grade doctors and Consultants in Emergency Medicine to deliver consistent quality care.”

More than 4,000 nursing posts have been lost since May 2010 and the Care Quality Commission says that one in 10 hospitals in England is understaffed. It emerged last week that the problem is set to get worse. A survey of NHS HR directors by the Health Service Journal found that 27% of trusts were planning to cut nursing jobs in the coming year, that 20% were planning to cut doctors and that one in three was not confident that they had enough staff to meet demand.

As I have said before, all parties in this House, including my own, need to learn the lessons of the failures in care at Mid Staffs and of the Francis report. The primary cause of those failures was dangerous cuts to front-line staffing. There is a clear risk that the NHS is repeating that mistake. I therefore call on the Secretary of State to intervene in the further round of job cuts and to ensure that all hospitals in England have safe staffing levels.

[Mr Dorrell]

May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the interface between social care and health care? He knows that I have a lot of sympathy for the points that he made about the importance of making that interface work more smoothly than it has done for a long time. Is the House to interpret his remark that an additional £1.2 billion ought to be made available for social care as a spending commitment that has the consent of the shadow Chancellor, on the day when the Labour party has said that it will not make good the child benefit changes that it opposed earlier in the Parliament?

[Andy Burnham]

It is important for me to answer the Chairman of the Health Committee. Those of us who are in the club of former Secretaries of State understand that the health and social care systems are interconnected and must be seen as one system, because the failure of social care lands on the doorstep of the NHS.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point directly, the money that I was talking about would come from the underspend. It is part of the allocated budget that his Government gave to the Department of Health for 2012-13. The Department did not spend the whole budget so there was a £2.2 billion underspend. As he knows, the practice has been that Departments can take forward that resource to meet new pressures in later years. I am asking the Secretary of State please to ask for access to that money to relieve the pressure on social care. Simply handing it back to the Treasury when there is an A and E crisis and social care is collapsing is not good enough.

The third point I want to address is out-of-hours advice and the introduction of the 111 service. Last week’s summit heard worrying evidence that the problems of 111 are not just teething problems, as the Secretary of State has claimed. We were told that the problems were more structural and were a result of how 111 has been set up—a feature of the cost-driven contracts that have replaced the successful and trusted NHS Direct. Contracts have gone to the lowest bidder, and they are saving money by having inexperienced call handlers working to a computer algorithm that too often results in the advice “Go to A and E”. There has also been a huge reduction in nurse-led call back, which was the norm with NHS Direct.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend know that we had a useful debate on this subject in Westminster Hall this morning, when I made the point that the dropping back from clinician-led triage has caused a problem that the chief executive of my local hospital told me about—that falling back on computer and non-clinician advice has led to patients being brought into the emergency departments when they were actually on end-of-life pathways and should have community input?

[Andy Burnham]

That shows the human cost of the failure that we have seen in recent weeks; my hon. Friend has identified yet another aspect of it.

There has been a huge reduction in nurse-led call back, so inexpert advice is being to people who should probably have other options put to them. An internal graph produced by NHS Direct shows that under the old 0845 NHS Direct service, about 60% of calls received a nurse call back; under 111, that has now dropped to between 17% and 19%. What is happening to these people? They are getting poor advice, so they are frightened and are going to A and E. What is this Secretary of State doing about it? Absolutely nothing.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Public Accounts Committee recently heard evidence about out-of-hours services in Cornwall. The bad experiences there showed that a lot of cost shunting was going on. If there was even a risk of taking somebody on through the GPs on call, it was cheaper and easier for that service to shunt the costs to the NHS through for ambulance services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a complete waste of money and that it underlines the shambles that he has just described?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree that there is a false economy here. The picture is repeated. The Government go for these privatised contracts, such as with 111, at the lowest cost, resulting in a drop in standards and less clinical support. What happens? People then turn up at A and E. What happens when social care is cut? People turn up at A and E. What happens when NHS walk-in centres are closed? People end up at A and E. This has serious implications. Across England, 22 serious incidents, including three deaths, are being investigated in connection with NHS 111, and we know that one in five calls is abandoned. This service is failing; it needs urgent action to tackle these problems.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

With the Serco contract for out-of-hours GP services in Cornwall having been referred to the Care Quality Commission, the manipulation of the data, falsely representing the outcomes of the service, has been identified. It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that this was set up under a contract that resulted from decisions made when he was in government.

[Andy Burnham]

I remember debating that with the hon. Gentleman when I was the Secretary of State. Those problems rightly needed to be addressed, and the particular issue he raises today should be investigated. I hope, however, that he will also understand the problem that I am describing to the House. If we go down the path of fragmenting services—if we take a successful national service such as NHS Direct, for example, which was trusted by the public, and then break it up into a patchwork of fragmented, some privatised, services—this sort of chaos will be the result.

A report has emerged this afternoon, showing that the viability of NHS Direct is in serious question. The headline states, “Leaked report casts doubt over NHS Direct’s ‘overall viability’ in the wake of NHS 111 failings”. This is a warning that NHS Direct may well go down altogether. What an indictment that would be of this Government’s mismanagement.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I shall give way one last time before concluding.

[Mr Thomas]

Are the closures and restricted opening hours of many walk-in centres not having an impact on the increasing A and E crisis? Alexandra Avenue polyclinic, which serves my constituents, now restricts its opening hours to weekends.

[Andy Burnham]

I entirely agree, and I shall say more about that issue shortly.

Let me return to the subject of the 111 service. Will the Secretary of State review the contracts with the aim of negotiating changes so that more calls can be handled by nurses? The use of the computer algorithm should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, and the full roll-out of 111 should be delayed until the problems have been solved.

There are more general questions to be asked about the scale and pace of NHS privatisation. NHS Direct offers an illustration of what happens when services are broken up. Those who attended last week’s summit heard that in some areas there had been a huge increase in the provision of 999 ambulances by private companies. It was said that on a single day in Yorkshire, 50% of 999 calls had been responded to by private operators. I think that the public would be surprised to know that. It shows that there is no part of our NHS that cannot be put up for sale by this Government.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that those private crews are appropriately trained and have the right equipment? Is there not a danger that because contractors are operating in isolation from the rest of the system, they will all too often simply transport people to A and E? Does the Secretary of State envisage any limits to private 999 services? Given that the issue raises fundamental questions about emergency services, should there not be a debate about it before this goes any further?

Fourthly—I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—there is good evidence to show that NHS walk-in centres have diverted pressure from A and E units. In 2010-11, there were about 2.5 million visits to such centres from people who might otherwise have gone to A and E. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that 26 of them closed in the last year alone, and that the number is down by a quarter. The Government have let that happen, but at least Monitor has intervened and set up a review of the loss of walk-in centres. Will the Secretary of State halt all further closures while the review is taking place?

That brings me to my fifth and final point, which concerns A and E closures and downgrades. At least 25 A and E units—one in 10—are under threat or have recently closed. The trouble with these plans is that they were drawn up in a different context, when A and E was not under the pressure that it is under today. Let me say this to the Secretary of State: if a clinical case can be made in support of closures—if there is evidence that lives can be saved—the Opposition will not oppose the plans. However, we cannot accept the pushing through of proposals that have not taken enough account of the latest evidence, and cannot show that extra pressure can be safely absorbed by neighbouring units. That is important, because the public will rightly ask this simple question: how can it make sense to close A and Es in the middle of an A and E crisis? To reassure people, will the Secretary of State personally review all the ongoing A and E closure or downgrade proposals on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the very latest evidence of pressure in the local health economy?

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one last time to each of my hon. Friends, but then I must finish my speech.

[Mr Slaughter]

What my right hon. Friend has been saying will be music to the ears of people in west London, where four A and E units are slated for closure. All of them are coping with dreadful circumstances. Will my right hon. Friend—and perhaps also the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who seems to share his view—have a word with my local Conservatives, who are supporting all those closures?

[Andy Burnham]

I think that everyone needs to consider their position in the light of the evidence that is emerging about pressure on A and E, particularly in London. I pay tribute to the excellent and determined campaign run by my hon. Friend, and I noted what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Enfield North. Perhaps one of the consequences of today’s debate will be agreement across the Floor of the House to delay any closures pending a personal review of the evidence by the Secretary of State.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way for the last time.

[Kate Green]

As my right hon. Friend will know, my local A and E unit at Trafford general hospital is one of the 30-odd units that are scheduled for downgrading. Meanwhile, it is more than 30 weeks since the two nearest A and E units, at Central and South Manchester hospitals, failed to meet the 95% performance target last September. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should also publish advice that he has received from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel which will inform his decisions, so that we can determine whether the latest pressures have been taken into account?

[Andy Burnham]

I think that full openness about these decisions is essential in the current context. I know that the panel’s report is with the Secretary of State, and I think he owes it to local Members of Parliament to be open about its conclusions and the evidence on which they were based. That is why I ask him to review every proposed A and E closure personally, and to give a guarantee to communities such as that represented by my hon. Friend that no changes will be made unless he is personally satisfied that it is safe to make them.

In conclusion, this is a crisis that could have been avoided. For the last three years the NHS has been struggling with the toxic medicine of budget cuts and top-down reorganisation. All the focus should have been on the front line, but instead the Government siphoned £3 billion out of it to pay for a back-office reorganisation that no one wanted and no one voted for—a reorganisation that has placed the NHS on a fast track to fragmentation and privatisation.

But it is worse than that. The Government’s own risk registers, which they refused to publish during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, warned them of the consequences of pushing ahead with a reorganisation when the NHS was facing great financial stress:

“The consequences could be compromised clinical care and patient safety, the failure of the 95% operational standard for A&E wait and a concomitant impact on other trust services”.

So they knew the risks they were taking when they reorganised the NHS at a time of financial stress; they were warned about this A and E crisis, but ploughed on regardless. It is the height of irresponsibility. No wonder they wanted to keep the risk registers secret. But with the looming cuts to jobs and social care, the problems in A and E will get worse, not better, if no action is taken on the points I have outlined today.

We have given the Secretary of State a practical plan, and he either needs to accept it or put one forward of his own. Right now, his complacency is one of the biggest dangers facing the NHS. He has failed to act on warnings about the collapse of social care. He has sat on his hands while front-line jobs are cut in their thousands. He has presided over the disastrous 111 service. He has closed NHS walk-in centres and downgraded A and Es without a convincing clinical case. It is no good his standing up today and blaming everyone else: this is a mess of his making—his first real test as Secretary of State and he has been found badly wanting. People want answers and action, and he needs to start providing them right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way to the shadow Health Secretary in a minute. One patient there had a cardiac arrest in the eye-examination room as there was no room in the resuscitation bay, and 24 to 36-hour waits for beds are now common in Wales. One patient spent a full three days in a Welsh emergency department. So let me give him a chance finally to condemn what is happening in Wales.

[Andy Burnham]

People watching this debate will be wondering why the Secretary of State is talking about something that is not his responsibility; nor is it mine. He is not responsible for the NHS in Wales; nor am I. I have put to him today serious questions about the NHS in England right now. He is the Secretary of State for the NHS in England, so will he now address the questions I put to him?

[Mr Hunt]

So there we are. Labour totally fails again to condemn the appalling shambles in the part of the country where it runs the NHS. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why what is happening in Wales is completely relevant to the debate in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he will just take his place for a moment while I make my point. I will also give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois)—[Interruption.] I will reflect on whether I want to give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I will certainly give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).

What is happening in Wales is directly relevant to what is happening in England, because in England the NHS budget has increased in real terms and NHS spending has increased in real terms. If we did not increase them both, that would mean fewer doctors, fewer nurses and longer waits for operations—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State shouts from a sedentary position that the NHS—

[Andy Burnham]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has just said at the Dispatch Box that the budget for the NHS has increased in real terms. In December, I referred the Secretary of State’s comments to the UK Statistics Authority and I received a letter back saying that they were incorrect. Will you ask the Secretary of State to correct the parliamentary record and ensure that when the statistics commissioner makes a ruling it is adhered to by the Secretary of State?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman has certainly made his clarification for the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dorrell]

I have four minutes, or with two interventions, six minutes, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not go off into a discussion about immigration policy.

I want to focus on the changing needs that the health service has to meet. I sometimes wonder whether people talking about rising demand on the health service and rising demand for emergency care have ever sat in a GP’s surgery. Have they noticed around them in a GP’s surgery the kind of people who present in a surgery and the conditions that bring them there—dementia, diabetes and drug and alcohol abuse? How can we expect a service that was designed to meet the needs of patients, inasmuch as it was designed at all, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to meet the needs of today’s increasingly elderly and dependent patients, without rethinking the way care is delivered?

This is—I come back to my core point—a shared analysis. It is not a subject of party political debate. It is a shared analysis between the two Front Benches, and what is even more surprising is that not only is the analysis shared, but the conclusions about the right policy response are shared.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dorrell]

Forgive me. I have a minute and a half and I want to develop what I think is an important point.

When I make the case for greater urgency about integration between the different parts of the health and care system, I am often told that I am supporting Andy Burnham’s plan. I am quite happy to support Andy Burnham’s plan. Actually, I gently claim credit for the fact that the Health Committee on a cross-party basis has been advancing this analysis from the beginning of this Parliament, and with due deference to the right hon. Gentleman and to my colleagues on the Select Committee I will also point out that part of the answer that the right hon. Gentleman is—rightly, I think—advancing builds on health and wellbeing boards, which are the creation not of me or of him, but of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), the former Secretary of State for Health and now the Leader of the House of Commons.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) talked about a duty of candour. Could we not have a duty of candour about agreement in the House of Commons—agreement that what needs to happen is not to find artificial divisions, but to build on the need for urgent change to meet the needs of today’s patients?

A and E Departments

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what evidence he has to show how his plans to change GP services will solve the current crisis in accident and emergency departments.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

A and E departments are under great pressure, and the whole House will want to pay tribute to the thousands of doctors, nurses and health care assistants who work extraordinary hours in very challenging conditions. They are there for us when we need them, and we owe them a great debt.

More than 1 million more people visit A and E every year compared with just three years ago—those are additional numbers—and the simple fact is that if growth continues at that rate it will be unsustainable. It also means that when there are short-term pressures on the system, such as a very cold winter, teething problems with NHS 111 or bank holidays, the system cannot cope as well as it needs to and the quality of care is affected.

Let us be clear: A and Es are currently hitting the 95% target. The latest figures show that 96.3% of patients are seen within four hours, and people are waiting on average 55 minutes for treatment. However, if A and E services are to be sustainable, we need both short-term and long-term measures to address the underlying causes of the pressure they are under.

Last week, NHS England announced that it would change the basis on which tariff money for certain A and E cases is spent. For the first time, hospitals will have a say in how money is spent to alleviate demand when that money is withheld for numbers exceeding the 2009 baseline. We also need to address more fundamental issues, which is why I announced to the House on 13 May that the Government will publish in the autumn a vulnerable older people’s plan that will tackle those long-term underlying causes of pressure in our A and Es, particularly for the frail elderly who are the heart of many of the issues we face in both quality of care and service performance.

The changes the Labour Government made to the GP contract took responsibility for out-of-hours care away from GPs. [[Interruption.] Labour Members may not like to hear the facts about the consequences of those changes, but let us go through them—they asked the question. Since those changes, 90% of GPs have opted out of providing out-of-hours care, and they got a pay rise in addition. As a result of those disastrous changes to the GP contract, we have seen a significant rise in attendances at A and E—4 million more people are using A and E every year than when the contract was changed. As researchers from the university of Nottingham found, to give just one example, a reduction in out-of-hours services provided by patients’ usual family doctors is a direct cause of increased A and E attendance by children.

There are other issues too, including the lack of integration with social care, and vulnerable patients being discharged from hospital with no one co-ordinating proper health and social care to support them in their own homes. That lack of integration was something else that the previous Government failed to address over 13 long years.

Then there are the problems inside A and E departments caused by the disastrous failure of Labour’s IT contract. When people are admitted to A and E departments, the departments are unable to see their medical records, which could have an enormous impact—[Interruption.]

[Mr Hunt]

We will address those problems inside A and Es and the system-wide issues. It is not all about the GP contract, but that is a significant part of it, because confidence in primary care alternatives is a key driver in decisions on whether to go to A and E. We will take responsibility for sorting out those problems, but the Labour party must take responsibility for creating a number of them.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State could brief the newspapers last night, but he could not give a straight answer to my question today. He has not outlined his plans to change GP services.

The facts are that A and Es are under severe pressure and people are waiting hours on trolleys in corridors or in the back of queuing ambulances to be seen. Last week, a third of major A and Es missed the Government’s lowered targets—some were seriously adrift. At University Hospitals of Leicester, 78% of patients were seen within four hours. Seventy-nine per cent. of patients were seen within four hours in Portsmouth. Things have taken a more serious turn today, with news that 20 senior A and E doctors say they are unable to guarantee patient safety.

For weeks, the Opposition have warned the Secretary of State to get a grip. His only substantive response was to tour the TV studios to blame the 2004 GP contract. We today read that his answer is yet another costly NHS reorganisation, this time of GP services. Where is the evidence to support his contention that that will solve the A and E crisis? Why did he not outline his plans to the House—he has already given the news to newspapers?

This morning, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation told the Select Committee on Health that there is no link between today’s pressures on A and E and the 2004 contract, echoing expert analysis from the King’s Fund. If the GP contract is the root cause, as the Secretary of State claims, will he explain why 98% of people were seen within four hours in 2009, five years after the contract was signed? That figure has deteriorated sharply under his Government, and mainly on his watch. Major A and Es have missed the target in 33 of the 35 weeks when he has been Health Secretary. His complacency is dangerous. Is it not time he stopped blaming GPs to divert attention from a mess of the Government’s own making and addressed the real causes?

Two weeks ago, NHS England told the Secretary of State what those causes were. He needs to provide convincing answers on each. What steps is he taking to prevent the collapse of adult social care in England? What is he doing to ensure that all A and Es in England have enough doctors and nurses to provide safe care? Will he update the House on the status of his plans to cobble together a £400 million A and E crisis fund, news of which was leaked a fortnight ago? Will he halt the closure of NHS walk-in centres and personally review all planned A and E closures? What is he doing to sort out the failing 111 service? Did he not speed up implementation against official advice?

The truth is that this is a mess of the Government’s own making. It will not be solved by the Secretary of State’s spin or by blaming GPs. He has been found playing politics when he should be dealing with the real causes of today’s chaos. Faced with a real crisis, he has been found wanting. He needs to cut the spin and get a grip.

[Mr Hunt]

What the right hon. Gentleman says would have some credibility if he looked at the facts. Fact: under this Government, we hit the A and E target for last year. Fact: Wales, where Labour is in control, has not hit the A and E target since 2009.

[Andy Burnham]

Forget Wales!

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman says, “Forget Wales,” but why has he never once been prepared to condemn the appalling failures in A and E in Wales, caused by the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to cut NHS spending by 8%? What he says would have some credibility were he at least prepared to condemn what has happened in Wales, but he never does.

The right hon. Gentleman asks for the evidence, and I will tell him. Patrick Cadigan of the Royal College of Physicians says that the pressures on A and E are caused because many people assume that, after 5 pm, the lights in the NHS go out everywhere except A and E departments—a direct consequence of those disastrous 2004 changes to the contract. Nottingham university conducted an independent study, and last year’s GP patient survey found that only 58% of patients know how to contact their local out-of-hours service, 20% find it difficult to contact their out-of-hours service, and 37% feel that the service is too slow—problems that we are trying to address. Perhaps he should visit some A and E departments and talk to consultants, doctors and nurses, because they will tell him that the changes to the GP contract, which he says have nothing to do with the pressures on A and E, have had a huge and devastating impact.

He talks about taking responsibility for these problems. Let us see if he is prepared to take responsibility. Is he prepared to take responsibility for the target-at-any-cost culture in some parts of the NHS under Labour, which led to the disaster of Mid-Staffs? Is he prepared to take responsibility for the IT failures that mean that A and E departments cannot access GP records? Will he nod his head if he is prepared to take responsibility? [Interruption.] He is not prepared. Is he prepared to take responsibility—

Health and Social Care

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I will make some progress.

Even worse, when signs of how the targets policy was going wrong became clear, Labour’s response was to ignore or cover up the findings.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Rubbish!

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman says “rubbish” from a sedentary position, but the Francis report—if he read it—mentioned 50 warning signs that were missed by his Government about Mid Staffs. He himself rejected 81 separate requests for a public inquiry into what happened. The Labour party created a lame duck Care Quality Commission, unable to speak out or force change, and an NHS where too often the system was more important than the individual.

[Andy Burnham]

At the outset, will the Secretary of State correct the record and remind the House that it was my decision, two months after being appointed Secretary of State in June 2009, to appoint Robert Francis to conduct an independent inquiry?

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman’s decision not to have a public inquiry that revealed extremely important information has meant that we are finally addressing the issue that his Government failed to address.

The Care Bill will include a vital element of our response to the Francis report, including regulatory clarity on who is responsible for identifying problems, driving up standards, and operating a single failure regime when urgent changes are not made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

Before I took the right hon. Lady’s intervention, I was talking about joined-up care. The truth is that Labour’s disastrous IT contract wasted billions and failed to deliver the single digital medical record that would transform the treatment received by so many vulnerable older people. Yes, it was a financial scandal, but it was also a care scandal. Last year, 42 people died because they received the wrong medicines. There were more than 20,000 medication errors that caused harm to patients, and 127,000 near misses. On top of that, structures such as payment by results were left unreformed for more than 13 years, making hospitals focus on the volume of treatment over and above the needs of individual patients. The Care Bill will help to address those issues by promoting integrated care. It creates a duty on local authorities and their partners to co-operate on the planning and delivery of care; it emphasises the importance of prevention and the reduction of people’s care needs; and, by making personal budgets the default and not the exception, it will significantly increase the control people feel over their care.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but the trouble with him is that, often, there is a huge gap between the rhetoric he comes out with at the Dispatch Box and the reality on the ground. He says he is promoting integrated care, but what does he say about the pioneers of integrated care in Torbay, who are threatening to take legal action because of the requirement for compulsory competitive tendering of services? Under this Government, are not the beacons of integration being demolished by his free market?

[Mr Hunt]

It is the right hon. Gentleman who has a problem with the difference between rhetoric and reality. Let me tell him about the reality of what happened to integrated care under Labour. Between 2001—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman intervened, so perhaps he would like to hear the reply. We are talking about integrated care. On his watch, between 2001 and 2009—eight years during which Labour was in power—hospital admissions went up by 36%. In Sweden, where people started thinking about integrated care, such admissions went up by 1%. That is how badly Labour failed to do anything about integrated care when it had the chance. We are doing something about it. If the Opposition listen, I shall explain what.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Like you, Mr Speaker, I am tempted to say, “Is that it?” I suggest to the Secretary of State that he starts reading the weekend newspapers. He began with complacent statements about how everything is marvellous and it is all going so well, but it will not feel like that to staff working in A and E. The Secretary of State’s statement will just confirm to them that he is completely out of touch.

Every day brings new signs of an NHS in distress: more ambulance queues outside A and E; more patients left waiting for a call-back by a 111 service ill-equipped to deal with their needs; more older people seeing social care support withdrawn, or struggling to pay spiralling care charges and ending up in A and E; more patients waiting hours in A and E on trolleys in corridors; and more hospitals running way beyond safe occupancy levels. This is the fragile state of the NHS today: battered and bruised by a reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for; an entire health and care system on the brink, facing huge challenges that require urgent answers. However, we will not find them in this Queen’s Speech. There is no answer to the collapse of social care, and no answer to the understaffing of hospitals or the growing chaos in A and E. On the preventable deaths and health harm caused by smoking and alcohol, there is silence.

This Queen’s Speech is the product of a dysfunctional Government who have lost any ability they once had to face up to the big challenges the country faces. It cements the impression of a failed coalition project now preparing the ground for the next election rather than governing in the national interest. What else could explain the pathetic spectacle this weekend of Government Members, spooked by UKIP, falling over themselves to say that they will be voting against their own legislative programme? Has this place ever seen something so ridiculous?

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Will Labour give us a referendum?

[Andy Burnham]

I thought the new compassionate Conservative party was meant to have stopped “banging on about Europe”—that was the phrase, was it not?—but now its Members are all dancing to UKIP’s tune and reading out what Mr Crosby gives them. It will not wash. The country can see that this is a shambles of a Government who look ridiculous to the country they purport to govern. When Britain needed leadership, it got the farce of this coalition. There is no need to send in the clowns; they are already here.

[Toby Perkins]

Does my right hon. Friend think, like me, that perhaps the Government feel more comfortable exposing their divisions on Europe than facing up to their record on the NHS, which, as many people across the health service recognise, is an absolute disgrace?

[Andy Burnham]

I shall come to that point directly, because the Queen’s Speech is a diversion from the real issues, an attempt to say, “Look over here at this other issue” and divert people’s attention from the chaos the Government have visited on the NHS.

On health and care, our objection is not to the modest measures the Government are proposing. We will of course wait to see the detail, but it sounds as though we will be able to give our support to many of them. Our objection to the Gracious Speech is not to what is in it, but to what is not in it and to the unpleasant political strategy that lies behind it. As a response to the developing crisis in our health and care system, it is inadequate. Worse, however, it tries to disguise that fact by pointing the finger at others. Forget compassionate Conservatism; this is straight back to the dog-whistle tactics—failed tactics, I might add—of the 2005 general election. This is the coded message the Government want the Queen’s Speech to send: “You see all those problems with accident and emergency departments? Well it’s all down to immigration. It’s nothing to do with us.” It is a Crosby-fied Queen’s Speech that is more about positioning and politics than a serious programme for government.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a real issue that concerns people, there have been 1.1 million immigrants from eastern Europe since 2004, so I repeat the question very courteously put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). The right hon. Gentleman talks about leadership, so will he show some and tell us whether the Labour party would grant the British people a referendum on Europe? Yes or no?

[Andy Burnham]

It is interesting, isn’t it? Here we are, in the middle of this Parliament, discussing the Queen’s Speech and health and social care, and what is the only issue Conservative Members can raise? Europe! We are talking about people waiting hours on end in A and E, about ambulances queuing outside, about a 111 service that does not ring anybody back, and about social care close to collapse, but they have nothing to say about those issues. Instead, they bang on about Europe. That is because they are preparing the ground for the 2015 election. The nasty party is back, scapegoating vulnerable people and stoking social division as a means of diverting attention from its own record, so get ready to hear how problems in the NHS are caused by health tourism and are nothing to do with the coalition’s toxic medicine of fragmentation, privatisation and budget cuts.

[Chris Bryant]

Is there not another side to the argument about immigration in relation to the NHS, which is that many of the people who keep the NHS functioning are from outside this country? One of the biggest problems facing accident and emergency departments around the country is that they cannot recruit enough consultants, yet the system that the Government have introduced on migration for those people is making it more difficult to recruit overseas. Would not a more enlightened attitude give us a more effective NHS?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

As ever, my hon. Friend says it more eloquently than I can. The Government are playing politics rather than addressing the national interest. People will see that, but at least the Government have revealed their hand. We will work hard over the next two years to show who is really to blame and expose this Government’s failures on social care, the NHS and public health. Let me take each in turn.

At face value, the social care measures that the coalition is proposing sound like progress towards a fairer and simpler system. Indeed, the Care Bill builds on many of the recommendations of the Law Commission’s review of adult social care legislation, which was initiated by the last Government and included in the White Paper I published before the last election. National standards for eligibility could help to bring consistency to the care system, and stronger legal rights for carers are long overdue, as is improved access to information and advice. However, the question in the minds of many today, particularly councillors watching this debate, will be: how on earth will we be expected to pay for all that? That is when we realise again that there is a huge gap between the rhetoric we hear from the Dispatch Box and the reality on the ground across England. More than £1.3 billion has been cut from local council budgets for older people’s social care since this Government came to power.

Just last week, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services said that Government cuts to care and councils would mean a further raid of £800 million from care budgets in the next year. The Care and Support Alliance has said that the system is in deep crisis and that without

“appropriate funding for the social care system…the aspirations set out in the Care Bill will not be reached.”

The Care Bill does nothing for people who face a desperate daily struggle to get the support they need right now, with many paying spiralling charges for their care. That is the effect of this Government’s drive to cut councils to the bone. They are foisting huge care charges on the most vulnerable people in our society. These are the coalition’s dementia taxes.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the people of this country would have more confidence in what he says at the Dispatch Box had he not said in the last general election campaign that it would be irresponsible to safeguard the NHS budget, which is what this Government undertook to do?

[Andy Burnham]

I will come directly to that quotation in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman will remember that at the last election he stood on a manifesto promising real-terms increases for the NHS. I hope that when he speaks later—or if he wants to get up right now—he will tell me whether they have been delivered.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge the great difference between England and Wales, where Labour is in power and where we are seeing real cuts in NHS spending.

[Andy Burnham]

Government Members are just embarrassing themselves. When they cannot answer a question, they try to raise another one or go on about Europe. It is just not good enough. The answer is—though the hon. Gentleman cannot admit it—that Andrew Dilnot said this Government had cut the NHS. It is there in black and white. That is what they have done, and they stood on a manifesto promising the opposite. I secured a budget to protect the NHS at the last election. I said that I could not give real-terms increases because that would be irresponsible; and as it turns out, nor can the hon. Gentleman. His party was writing cheques that it simply could not cash, and that is a fact.

The Care Bill does nothing for those hit by the coalition’s dementia taxes right now. Since this Government came to power, the average care user has paid £655 a year more for home care than when they came into office. Overall, that is around £6,800 a year. Dial-a-ride transport services have doubled in price over the same period, from an average of £1.92 to £4.12. Meals on wheels now cost an extra £235 a year, while people in Conservative areas pay more for each service on average than friends and family in Labour-controlled areas—on average, £15 a week or £780 a year more for home care. That is the record of this Government.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one last time.

[Stephen Mosley]

The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for more than 10 minutes and he has not once said what Labour would do. Will he come to what the Opposition propose we should do?

[Andy Burnham]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will come on to that, but I have a job to do in holding this shambles to account and that is exactly what I am doing.

Under this Government, people are paying more out of mum or dad’s bank account for care, which often does not come up to the standards that they want, because their council has been cut to the bone. What are they meant to make of a promised, far-off cap of £72,000, or £144,000 for a couple? The Government are giving a little with one hand, while with the other they are grabbing a fortune from people’s bank accounts.

[Barbara Keeley]

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this is not even a question of £72,000 or £144,000, because those caps will be metered at the level that the council would pay, and will take no account of top-ups or accommodation costs? I have seen examples that show that people might have to pay £250,000 before they get anywhere near the cap and any help from the state.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cap is a mirage, and this will not feel like progress to people who are paying care charges. Indeed, it is a cruel con trick. The Government are loading extra charges on people while telling them that they might benefit from a cap in a number of years. This simply means that more people will be paying right up to the level of that £72,000 cap.

How can it be fair to pay for the cap by raiding council support? That does not make sense. Those of us who were involved in the cross-party talks—the failed cross-party talks, I might add—will remember that a question was put directly to Andrew Dilnot. He was asked whether, if there was not enough money around, it would be better to pay for a cap or to pay to support councils to ensure that the baseline was not cut further. His clear answer was that we had to do both. He said that it would not make sense to do one without the other, yet that is what this Government are doing—

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

indicated dissent.

[Andy Burnham]

That is what this Government are doing. A cap is ineffective without long-term funding for the future of social care, and the failure to face up to the crisis in adult social care budgets that Conservative councillors are talking about will leave people with the impression that this Health Secretary is fiddling while Rome burns. The social care system in England is close to collapse, and the reality behind the Government spin is that, under this Government, people’s savings are being washed away more quickly than ever before.

I want to turn now to our accident and emergency services. The crisis in social care is the predominant driver of what we are now seeing in our accident and emergency departments. If people’s services are withdrawn, or if they cannot afford to pay for them, they are more likely to struggle and fall ill at home and to end up in hospital. That is bad for them, and it costs the NHS more. Also, NHS staff are finding that people who are ready to leave hospital cannot be discharged because the necessary support cannot be put in place. Beds are not being freed up on the wards, and A and E therefore cannot admit people to the wards because there is no space. A and E then becomes full, which results in ambulances queuing up outside because they cannot hand over patients. The system is now backing up right through A and E.

[Mr Hunt]

indicated assent.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State is nodding; he should do something about it. This is happening on his watch. Across the country, hospitals are operating at levels way beyond safe bed occupancy—[Interruption.] He nods, but I am saying, “Do something. Don’t just nod!” We need action from the Secretary of State.

Let me return to the quote that I mentioned earlier. People love to say that I would have cut the NHS. For the record, I have never said that I would cut the NHS. At the last election, I promised real-terms protection for the NHS. The Conservatives promised real-terms increases, which have never been delivered. Let me read that quote in full:

“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending if the effect is that it is damaging, in a serious way, the ability of other services to cope…that are intimately linked to the NHS. The health service needs functioning day care, and housing”

and meals on wheels.

That warning has now come true.

[Mr Hunt]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way to the Secretary of State, but I ask him to address this point. He has paid for the so-called ring fence on the NHS by ransacking local government funding, and that makes no sense whatever.

[Mr Hunt]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that real-terms spending on the NHS has gone up since Labour was in power. Given that he thinks it irresponsible to increase the NHS budget, does he agree that if he were to follow his own policy, he would now need to cut that budget from its current level? That is Labour policy.

[Andy Burnham]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is listening. I said that if there were to be any increase, it should go into supporting social care. I now hear that Government Members are proposing emergency transfers from the NHS budget to social care because of the crisis that the Secretary of State has created.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Surely the Secretary of State has forgotten that he received a letter in December from Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, which said that

“we…conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10…In light of this, I should be grateful if the Department of Health could clarify the statements made.”

[Andy Burnham]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He has now embarrassed the Secretary of State who, just a moment ago from the Dispatch Box, claimed the opposite. Similarly, the Work and Pensions Secretary was pulled up last week for doing exactly the same thing. They think they can stand there and say whatever they like, and they think they can get away with it, but they cannot, because people have seen through them. They have cut the NHS; they have broken the central promise on which this Government came to office. Now they are saying that the pressure on A and E has nothing to do with social care funding or NHS funding, but is all to do with the GP contract in 2004. That is what they have been saying on the radio for the last three weeks.

Let the Government answer this. In 2009—five years after the GP contract came into force—98% of people were seen within four hours at A and E departments across England. What we have seen recently is that, week after week, major A and E units are missing their lowered target. That is the reality right now, and the Secretary of State had better start facing up to it.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

My right hon. Friend will have heard me refer to the situation in Newark, when intervening on the Secretary of State. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a promise is made that closing or downgrading an A and E will save lives, that is what one logically expects to happen? The fact that the death rate subsequently went up is an indictment of what the Secretary of State has done. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we cannot meet the four-hour target for A and E throughout the country, it is ludicrous to close existing, well-functioning A and E units?

[Andy Burnham]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. All over the country, we hear that A and E is under intense pressure. Such is the importance of these services to every community that changes should be made only if there is a compelling clinical case to support them. If clinicians can demonstrate that more lives will be saved and disability will be reduced by changing A and E services, I think every Member should have a moral obligation to support them, but when the changes are financially driven—my right hon. Friend knows this better than anybody, as the Secretary of State has downgraded a successful A and E in Lewisham to deal with problems in another trust—that simply will not do. A and E units in west London, for example, are being closed one after another. That is not good enough, and neither is it good enough in Greater Manchester, where huge changes are planned. These changes must be clinically driven, not driven by finance, which is what we are seeing under this Government.

[Mr Watts]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one last time, before making some progress.

[Mr Watts]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is rightly concentrating on A and E units and social care. Does he agree with me that many hospitals around the country are facing a financial crisis, too, where the Government are refusing to fund anything other than consultancies? In my area, that has meant spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to tell us what we already knew—namely, that my hospital is underfunded.

[Andy Burnham]

That is what happens when a market is set up in the NHS, pitting one hospital against another in open competition. That is what is beginning to take hold in the NHS, where the Government waste money on consultants and all the other things that come from bidding for contracts. That is a direct effect of the legislation they pushed through. This reorganisation and the budget cuts I mentioned a few moments ago are providing a toxic mix. This is why for 32 weeks running, the NHS in England has missed the Government’s own lowered A and E target for major units. It really is time that the Health Secretary got a grip on the issue. We hear that last week he was trying to hatch a panic plan to deal with the A and E crisis. That is the reality of what was going on behind this threadbare Queen’s Speech: the Health Secretary was trying to cobble together a plan to deal with the A and E problems, weeks after we had first raised the issue in the House.

We hear of an e-mail leaked by an NHS finance officer which said:

“The SoS would like to announce tomorrow that £300m-400m is being invested to solve the A&E problem. We have spent most of the day trying to hold him off doing this.”

The Health Secretary seems to have forgotten that his powers to intervene were given away by his predecessor. He no longer has the power to mandate the NHS to do what he wants; the NHS can now “hold him off”. I am afraid that he looks weak. He has no response to what is happening to A and E departments. And where is the “£300 to £400 million” plan? It has not materialised. That is proof that when the Government surrendered their powers of control over the NHS, the Health Secretary surrendered his ability to do anything about the problems that we now face.

It is just as bad when it comes to staffing. We hear that nurses’ posts continue to be lost. Nearly 5,000 have been lost since the Government came to power, and according to the findings of a survey published yesterday, nurses fear that further tragedies could happen as a result of staff losses. That should set alarm bells ringing throughout the Department of Health. The Care Quality Commission has said that one in 10 hospitals in England does not have adequate staffing levels. The Health Secretary nods. I am glad that he accepts that, but, again, what is he going to do about it?

I welcome the fact that the Care Bill will contain measures relating to the Francis report, and I will work with the Health Secretary on that, but let us get to the crux of the issue of safe staffing levels, because that is the most urgent problem facing the NHS. The Health Secretary nods again. Let me make him an offer. If he introduces a benchmark—if he specifies minimum staff to patient ratios—we will support him, and the measure will go straight through the House. I shall wait for him to respond to that offer, and to ensure that the recommendations of the Francis report are properly implemented.

I give a cautious welcome to some of the Health Secretary’s measures to deal with health tourism, but let me issue two caveats. First, it is important not to overstate the nature of the problem, and secondly, it is essential for health practitioners not to be turned into immigration officers. In March, when asked how much health tourism was costing the NHS, the Health Secretary said:

“I don’t want to speculate… but… we have heard… it’s £200 million.”

On the same day, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said he believed that the figure was more like £20 million. Perhaps the Health Secretary could account for the difference—or did he just add a zero?

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Would it not be helpful if the Health Secretary could tell us exactly how much he thinks is being lost and what it will cost to try to recover the money? At present the only figure that he has is the one on the invoices, rather than one relating to the money that is actually recovered.

[Andy Burnham]

We must wait to see what the Government produce, but we need to be sure that they are attacking the real problem rather than playing politics with an issue and creating the impression that all the A and E problems are caused by immigration. If that is their real intention, they will have no support from the Opposition.

[Chris Bryant]

Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to hear what the Conservative right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said during the debate on the Queen’s Speech last week? It was very intelligent and nuanced. He said that it was necessary to ensure that not just life-threatening diseases but notifiable diseases and mental health conditions would not be covered by the proposed measures. The position is not quite as straightforward as some newspapers might like to suggest.

[Andy Burnham]

Nuance, care and caution are precisely what we need in this debate; we do not need press statements written by Lynton Crosby which then turn up in the House as Bills. We want responsible government, ensuring that the NHS is not abused. We will support the Government as long as that is their intention, but if they are doing something more sinister and playing politics with these issues, they will not have our support.

We have had no answers on the NHS. Let me finally turn to public health. There was not much on which I agreed with the last Health Secretary, but he had my strong support when he spoke about tackling smoking. He said that he wanted tobacco companies to have “no business” in this country, and that introducing standardised packaging was an essential next step to ensure that young smokers were not recruited by the tobacco industry. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), looks confused, but I think she advanced the same argument on the radio a couple of weeks ago, saying she was an advocate of standardised packaging. Then, we read in advance in our newspapers that the measure had been dropped—one of the “barnacles” on “the boat”, we were told, by the said Mr Crosby. This is the same Mr Crosby who has represented “big tobacco” since the 1980s, who masterminded the campaign against standardised packaging in Australia, and who was federal director of the Liberal party of Australia when it accepted millions of pounds in donations from the tobacco industry.

The Secretary of State said last week that a decision has not been made yet because the consultation has only just finished. It ended nine months ago. He can make a decision. I say to him again today, here is another positive offer from the Opposition: if he brings forward these proposals, they will have our full support and we will get them on the statute book.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend may be interested to learn that the Prime Minister wrote to me about plain packaging before the Queen’s Speech was delivered to both Houses. He said in that letter that there were currently no proposals to introduce plain packaging.

[Andy Burnham]

The former Secretary of State said that it was full steam ahead and that is what they would do. This Secretary of State comes in and says nothing about the issue. Then, a right-wing Australian lobbyist arrives, and all of a sudden no one mentions it at all. Has the Secretary of State ever met Lynton Crosby and discussed this issue with him? I think we have a right to know. [Interruption.] He nods; I should be interested to know the substance—[Interruption.] He has not met him to discuss the issue. He looks very uncomfortable all of a sudden.

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

Just to put the right hon. Gentleman out of his misery, I have not discussed this matter on any occasion with Lynton Crosby.

[Andy Burnham]

We are going to have to get to the bottom of this—not just the Secretary of State, but all his Ministers and advisers and all the No. 10 advisers—because it looks to us as though this Government have raised the white flag on having any semblance of a progressive public health policy. I cannot believe that the Liberal Democrats put their name to such reactionary stuff. Where is minimum alcohol pricing? Where is public health in this Queen’s Speech? They are totally absent.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has very clear convictions and a desire to tackle smoking as a public health issue. However, a third of cigarettes smoked in London are contraband. How would standardised packaging deal with that problem?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree that we need to do something about that, and we did bring forward measures in government, but standardised packaging is not plain packaging: it is about having designs on the pack that could be used to ensure there is no counterfeit tobacco. Surely some things are more important—the young smokers in the hon. Lady’s constituency and mine who are targeted by the tobacco industry. Surely we in this House can unite on issues such as this and take steps to improve the long-term health of the country. It seems to us that the Government have given up on the health of the nation.

I said I would set clearly out for the House what I would do had I been standing at the Government Dispatch Box today. For a start, I would have introduced a Bill to repeal the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012, which has placed our NHS on a fast track to fragmentation and privatisation. That Bill would have restored the powers and responsibilities that the Secretary of State’s predecessor gave away, and which he found out last week he no longer has. I would legislate for the full integration of health and social care as the only realistic answer to the challenges brought by the century of the ageing society.

People can see that increasingly it is the Opposition who have the courage and the answers to deal with the big challenges the country faces, not a failed coalition that is now playing out time. Its toxic medicine of cuts and reorganisation has laid the NHS low, and now it has no answers to the chaos it created. That is because the Secretary of State only discovered last week that his own reorganisation had stripped him of his powers to intervene, leaving him looking weak—in office, but not in power. Having done that, the Government’s answer is to try to scapegoat others for problems of their making. It will not work—we will remind people that it was a right-wing reorganisation that has left the NHS destabilised and demoralised. We will never tire of reminding the Prime Minister that the British people never gave him their permission to put the NHS up for sale, and we will restore the right values to the heart of our NHS—compassion before competition, integration over fragmentation, people before profits. The NHS and the country deserve better than a Government who are out of touch and out of ideas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I want to concentrate my remarks on social care, because all too often in debates entitled “Health and Social Care” we tend to spend most of our time debating health, and yet our social care system is absolutely vital in regulating health care costs and delivering a better-quality health service. The Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech—it was indeed published on Friday—goes a long way towards laying some important foundations for a better social care system.

The Care Bill attempts to address a number of long-standing flaws in the system that have developed over the past 60 years through a series of piecemeal measures enacted by successive Governments. It is essential that in considering this over the next few months we make sure that we get it right, because legislation in the social care sphere comes to the House very infrequently. Our care and support system is of key importance because the rapid age shift that is taking place in our population is profoundly changing the nature of the demands on the system. It is important to note that this is not just about ageing; it is about the complex co-morbidities of long-term health conditions, both physical and mental, that are at the heart of the serious pressures on our whole system.

Our social care system has a number of features that need to change. It is too oriented around crisis and stutters into life when things have already gone wrong. It does not enable people to plan successfully for future care needs or, indeed, to prevent and postpone them. It does not provide adequate signposting, information, advice and advocacy for people to secure what they need from it, making it feel too much like a fight to get what is necessary. There is a lack of recognition of, and support for, family carers. Quality is variable around the country. We have heard announcements today about co-ordination of care and continuity, which is clearly a problem too. The costs of care are a lottery, and that needs to be addressed.

The Bill is taking all this forward. It focuses on early intervention and prevention, with a new responsibility for that to be up front in the way that local authorities plan their services. There are new duties on information and advice. I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed that the Bill should specifically refer to financial advice as being part of the legal obligations. There are new rights for adult carers—I will talk about young carers in a moment—with a lower threshold of eligibility for services. That is very welcome. A new rating system is being established to assist with quality of care and to help providers themselves to benchmark their performance.

[Andy Burnham]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on this subject, but does he believe that councils have sufficient resources to consider new rights, given that we hear that care is collapsing all over the country and the Local Government Association says that if nothing else happens councils will be overwhelmed by the costs of care in less than 10 years?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening. If he looks at last year’s Government impact assessment of the draft Bill, he will see that it gave a commitment to directing an additional £150 million specifically towards the rights of carers. The White Paper also gave a commitment to an additional £300 million over this and next year to support the system during this spending review period. I will address the funding questions for the future in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman was a little harsh in his comments on the Bill laying the foundations for the implementation of the Dilnot cap on care costs. To understand this properly, we need to consider the relationship between the Government’s generous change to the means test—the threshold is being raised to £118,000—and the cap itself. Of course, we do not want people to reach the cap. We want steps to be taken to enable them to avoid having to pay catastrophic lifetime costs in the first place. The biggest gain of implementing the Dilnot proposals is a public health gain. It is about having conversations about care needs earlier, so that steps can be taken to minimise the risks of heavy-end care costs later in life. The Bill also commits the Government to national eligibility for the first time, which is hugely welcome.

I want to touch on three issues in the time remaining. First, some serious questions remain about how the Bill, which we will scrutinise over the coming months, will deal with the issue of young carers, which has already been raised. It is possible that young carers will fall into a gap between the Children and Families Bill, which is currently before the House, and the Care Bill, which will soon be before us. The Care Bill needs to address situations in which an adult does not qualify for local authority support and their children end up taking on caring responsibilities that become overly burdensome and inappropriate. In such circumstances the adult should be entitled to some sort of service so that their child does not lose their childhood to caring responsibilities. That requires action in the adult-related Care Bill; it should not be pushed away to be dealt with in the Children and Families Bill.

The second issue is poor commissioning practice, which was highlighted by an Equality and Human Rights Commission report on home care more than 18 months ago. It identified that contracting by the minute, or time-and-task contracting of home care, denigrated people and that they were being dealt with in an undignified way as a consequence of how services were being commissioned. Just a few weeks ago the Low Pay Commission’s most recent report highlighted, yet again, too many circumstances in which home care is being delivered by people who are paid below the national minimum wage. That is unacceptable and the Government need to deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a real joy to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), my next-door neighbour—you are being extremely skilful in your selection of speakers today, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much enjoyed her contribution; she spoke in her usual trenchant and passionate style. I also enjoyed hearing about the work that her late father was involved in, and I can say with some confidence that he would be extremely proud of her and all that she has done in her time as a Member of Parliament.

I liked the Queen’s Speech, but it was a little long for my liking. I was looking forward to the Queen sitting on the throne and saying, “My Government have decided to introduce no new laws this year, but to concentrate on implementing and overseeing well the policies that we have already passed and the laws that we have already put in place.” As we all know, coming to the House and taking legislation through involves a huge time commitment for Ministers, and there is a huge case to be made for Ministers to focus on implementing well the things that we have already decided. We have been radical in the past three years in this Parliament, so let us make sure that the policies now work in practice on the ground—let us set our Ministers free to do that. Interestingly, the key areas our constituents are most concerned about—getting the deficit down, getting the economy moving and cracking down on immigration—do not require any legislation at all. They simply require us to do well the things we have already decided.

I welcome the Queen’s Speech and, despite having said what I just said, the increased attention on immigration, which is what our constituents want. The reaction of my constituents to some of the tough measures we have introduced so far on immigration and on welfare changes is, “It’s about time. We have been waiting for this for many years.” So I support the broad direction of travel of the Government, and I have full confidence in the Health Secretary.

I want to make two points in a brief contribution about health issues, the first of which is about the challenge of urgent care. Our parliamentary system has many strengths, but one weakness is that every Government Member is inclined to say that everything we are doing is wonderful, while the Opposition are inclined to say that everything we are doing is rubbish. We all know that the truth lies somewhere in between. I support and pay tribute to the fact that we continue to pump fresh money into the health system year after year. The shadow Health Secretary is convinced that we are not meeting our commitment to increase health spending above inflation every year—I think we are, but of course there is a debate to be had. I do know that there are pressure points in the health system that need to be tackled, and urgent care is one of them.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman’s association with the detail seemed to be loose there; Andrew Dilnot wrote to the Government to say that health spending was lower in real terms in 2010-11 than it was when Labour left government. It is important to point out that the promise the hon. Gentleman stood on was for real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament and that that has not been honoured.

[Mr Streeter]

That is Andrew Dilnot’s opinion, but it is not mine—that is the point I am seeking to make. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman’s speech was riddled with references to spending—more spending on health and on local councils—but is he not aware that this year the deficit in this country will still be, even after three years of austerity, £110 billion? If he comes to the Dispatch Box to make speeches about extra spending for health and local councils, he is obliged to tell us where that money will come from. At the moment, I can see no signs of it whatever.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Streeter]

I will not take any further interventions, but let us not hear any further speeches calling for extra spending unless we know where the money is coming from.

As I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted, there are pressure points in the health system, and urgent care is one of them. This is about not only accident and emergency departments, but GP and out-of-hours services, community nursing, social care, ambulance services and hospital beds—there is pressure on all those points.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View and I are fortunate to go to Derriford hospital in Plymouth for briefings. I have been going slightly longer than she has—21 years—and I can tell the House that in good times and in bad times Derriford hospital is under pressure. It has a running capacity of about 95%, which means that when there are spikes, as there have been this winter, it can be running at 103% capacity, which puts the hard-working staff under enormous pressure. Even when the Labour Government were spending money as though it were going out of fashion, I have never gone to Derriford hospital and had the staff tell me, “It’s fine. There are no pressure points. Everything is working in our health service. It’s all working well and waiting lists are coming down.” That has not happened once in 21 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. What Andrew Wakefield said had no scientific basis and caused huge damage and worry to many thousands of parents. It is very important to reiterate that the scientific way to prevent measles, which can be a horrible and even a fatal disease, is to make sure that children have had two doses of MMR. Parents of children of any age who have not had those doses should contact their GP, particularly in the current circumstances.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Accident and emergency departments across England are being closed, even though all are under intense pressure. For 11 weeks running, the NHS has missed the Government’s national A and E target. Last week, in places, one in three patients waited more than four hours in scenes not seen since the bad old days of the mid-1990s. What clearer symbol of the growing crisis in A and E is there than a tent as a makeshift ward in the car park at Norwich? The Secretary of State’s failure to address that cannot continue. Nursing jobs have been lost, ambulances are queuing outside A and E and patients are being treated in car parks. When will he get a grip?

[Mr Hunt]

The statistic that the right hon. Gentleman will not give the House is that for the year as a whole, which ended last March, the Government hit our A and E target. Furthermore, he still will not tell the House about the disaster that is happening in Labour-controlled Wales, where the A and E target has not been hit since 2009. He still refuses to condemn what is happening there. There is a lot of pressure on A and E, because 1 million more people are using A and E every year, compared with just two years ago. What are the root causes? They are poor primary care alternatives that date directly to the disastrous GP contract negotiated by his Government, since when more than 4 million additional people have been using A and E every year, social care and hospital sectors that are not joined up—Labour had 13 years to sort that out but did nothing—and problems in recruitment that have been made a great deal worse by his disastrous decision to implement the working time directive. It is time he sorted out his own issues before trying to criticise the Government for sorting them out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is having a break on that one. The continuing outbreaks of TB cause a lot of concern, especially in certain communities. I have no hesitation in agreeing to meet my hon. Friend to explain what NHS England is doing and the development of a national strategy.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Here comes another request for a meeting with the very obliging Minister. Last month he promised the House that he would rewrite the section 75 regulations to rule out enforced competitive tendering in the NHS. However, before Easter the respected House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said this of his redraft:

“The substitute Regulations are substantially the same as the original Regulations.”

It is no surprise that it seems to many that the Government are intent on privatisation by the back door, putting large parts of the NHS up for sale. With a crunch vote in the Lords next week, it is turning into another shambles. I make this offer to the Minister: will he again agree to withdraw the regulations and to sit down with us and the professions this week and come up with wording that is acceptable to all?

[Norman Lamb]

This really is the most outrageous scaremongering from the Labour party. In March 2010, the Labour Government issued guidance on European procurement law that described the limited circumstances in which one could avoid going out to tender. The wording used in these regulations is exactly the same as that used by Labour in March 2010, yet Labour Members will not admit that. There are also added safeguards in the redrafted regulations to ensure that there is a clear incentive for integrating and co-ordinating services for the benefit of patients.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the measured way in which he introduced it.

The NHS is 65 this year, and if it is to be ready for the challenges of this century, it must learn from the darkest hours of its past. The NHS was founded on compassion and, as the Secretary of State said, what happened at Stafford was a betrayal of that. Rightly, apologies have been given, but it is now time to act and make this a moment of change.

Robert Francis delivered 290 careful recommendations after a three-year public inquiry and, like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to him today. In response, the Prime Minister promised a detailed response to each recommendation by the end of this month. Although the Opposition welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said today, his statement falls short of that promised full response and contains serious omissions on which I would like to press him, in particular, on four of Robert Francis’s flagship recommendations, which I shall take in turn.

First, we welcome the move to place a duty of candour on health care providers and believe it could help bring about the culture change the NHS needs. The Francis report, however, goes further and recommends a duty of candour on individual members of staff. Will the Secretary of State say more about why he has only accepted this recommendation in part and not applied it to staff? Has he ruled that out or is he prepared to give it further consideration?

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the duty will apply equally to all providers of NHS services, including private providers? His statement was a little vague on that point. More generally, with more private providers coming into the NHS, is it not the case that we will not get the transparency we need unless the provisions of freedom of information apply fully to all holders of NHS contracts and information cannot be withheld under commercial confidentiality?

Secondly, on patient voice, the Government have announced new chief inspectors of hospitals and social care. Those were not Francis recommendations and, while we give them a cautious welcome, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that regulation alone will not be enough to prevent another Mid Staffs. Instead, we need a powerful patient voice in every community that is able to sound the alarm if things are going wrong. Rather than pulling down the shutters, as the NHS has a tendency to do, complaints should be embraced as opportunities to learn and improve.

It is just a matter of days until the new NHS comes into being and the concern is that patient voice has not been embedded at the heart of the new system. A third of councils say that their local healthwatch will not be up and running by the 1 April deadline, and there are wide variations in both structure and membership. Will the Government accept Robert Francis’s recommendation of a consistent basic structure for healthwatch programmes throughout the country before it is too late and they go their separate ways?

Thirdly, on regulation and training, Robert Francis has made a very clear case for a new system of regulation of health care assistants to improve basic standards—a case that we made during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012—yet it did not feature in the Secretary of State’s statement. Have the Government accepted in principle the regulation of health care assistants?

We support moves to rebalance nurse training and to include more hands-on experience, but student nurses already spend 50% of their time in clinical practice and face significant financial barriers when completing their training. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that requiring a year on the ward will not increase the financial barriers to young people entering nursing and, if more trainees are to be on the wards, will he ensure that there are enough staff with the time to train the extra students?

That takes me to my fourth point and the most glaring omission from the Secretary of State’s statement, namely safe staffing levels. We will never get the right culture on our wards if they are understaffed and over-stretched, but there is evidence that things are going in the wrong direction and the Secretary of State was silent on the issue today.

The CQC has recently reported that one in 10 hospitals in England do not have adequate staffing levels. Just last week, work force figures showed that there had been a reduction of 843 nurses between November and December last year. Does that not sound the clearest of alarm bells that some parts of the NHS are already in danger of forgetting the lessons of its recent past by cutting the front line too far? Do not communities need a clear, objective benchmark so that they can challenge staffing levels on wards, and would it not be a great help to them for the Francis recommendation on staff-patient ratios to be accepted? We learned last week that the Department has handed £2.2 billion from last year’s budget back to the Treasury. Surely that money would have been better invested in the front line and in bringing all hospitals in England back up to safe staffing levels.

Finally, I want to turn to Stafford hospital itself, which Monitor has recommended should be placed in administration. This doubt about the hospital’s future will be causing real concern to the people of Stafford. After all they have been through, I think we can all agree that they deserve a safe and sustainable hospital, and I hope the Secretary of State will soon set out a plan to achieve that.

Learning the lessons of Stafford cannot be done overnight. We all have to play our part. The Government have made a start today, but much more needs to be done and we will hold them to that.

[Mr Hunt]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about glaring omissions in the Government’s response, but there were glaring omissions in his response too. Where was the apology for Labour’s targets culture that led to so many of the problems; the apology for failing to set up a regulatory structure that had proper safeguards; and the apology for missing all those warning signs? This was not just the darkest day in NHS history, but the darkest day in Labour’s management of the NHS. It is time the Labour party recognised the policy mistakes it made.

Let me go through what the right hon. Gentleman says are omissions. First, on the duty of candour, we accept the principle of the duty of candour when it applies to hospital boards, but we want to be absolutely sure that there are not unintended consequences of applying it to hospital staff, because another part of the Francis report is on the importance of a culture of openness and transparency, and we do not want a culture of fear. We have therefore not ruled out criminal sanctions for hospital employees who breach a duty of candour—they already have a contractual duty of candour —but, as I said in my statement, we want to wait for the result of Don Berwick’s report on zero harm to ensure that we do not take any measure that impedes the openness we need in hospitals.

The inspection regime will apply to all providers. It is important that it should, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who mentioned private providers, that the problems happened at an NHS hospital. Trying to turn this into a debate on privatisation tells people that Labour is missing the point in the response to Francis.

We will not introduce statutory regulation of health care assistants, but we will introduce minimum standards of training for them. We will not introduce statutory regulation because we believe there is a risk that a database of 0.5 million to 1.5 million people could end up being a box-ticking exercise that fails to raise standards in the way we need. We believe we have another way to achieve the same end, which is what we will implement.

On nurse training, we believe it is important that nurses have hands-on experience of the front line, because nurses, when they are properly qualified, will be managing health care assistants. It is therefore important that nurses understand what it is like to be a health care assistant. We will be very careful in how we implement that to ensure that we do not create financial barriers because, obviously, we want to attract the best people into nursing, regardless of income.

On staffing levels and nursing numbers, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the problems at Mid Staffs happened when Labour was in power, when budgets were going up quite significantly, and when numbers were going up. To distil the problem to one of numbers is, again, to miss the point. This is about the values of the people on the ward. If he wants to talk about numbers, he must accept that, because this Government have protected the NHS budget, which he wants to cut from its current levels, there are 6,000 more clinical staff in the NHS today than there were at the time of the last election.

On Stafford hospital, it is extremely important that, when we have problems such as the ones at Mid Staffs, we create a structure that makes it impossible not to deal with them. That is a difficult process. We are announcing today a time-limited process to ensure that Ministers and the system cannot duck difficult decisions when we have a failing hospital. Obviously, we will follow the Monitor trust special administrators’ recommendations and look at them carefully, but it is important to address the issues. The wrong thing to do would be to fail to do so, because that would lead to clinical failure.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman broadly accepts the Francis recommendations. He asked whether we would respond to all of them. The inquiry was a public inquiry, which he refused to set up. As a result of that detailed public inquiry, there are 290 recommendations. It takes time to go through all of them in detail, but I thought it was right to come to the House today with our initial response so that we can get cracking with the important things right away.

Immigrants (NHS Treatment)

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

What my right hon. Friend says bears very careful consideration. He is absolutely right that primary care is a critical access point, and we need to look at that. We also need to look at the burdens we place on GPs. I think that ultimately the easy way we will do that is through proper digital patient records, which will allow NHS professionals to find out about the medical history of people accessing the NHS at any point, including whether they are likely to be eligible for free treatment.

With regard to hospitals, my right hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about an overseas visitors manager. One of the problems we have is that the incentives in the system positively disincentivise hospitals from declaring foreign users of the NHS. If they declare someone not to be entitled to free NHS care, they have to collect the money from that person themselves, whereas if they do not declare the person not to be entitled to free NHS care, they get paid automatically by their primary care trust or clinical commissioning group. The incentives in the system have acted to suggest that this is a much smaller problem than I believe it is.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The NHS must not be open to abuse. Where people do not have entitlement to free treatment, steps should always be taken to recover the costs from individuals and Governments. That clear principle is shared by Members across this House.

For some time, hospitals have rightly had a legal duty to recover any charges owed from overseas patients. The previous Government proposed a number of further steps, including amending immigration rules so that anyone with substantial medical debts is not allowed back into the country. We welcome efforts to build on that, while always guarding against overblown rhetoric, which does not help the immigration debate. We therefore need more precision and clarity from the Secretary of State. First, on the scale of the problem, as ever with this Government’s announcements, there is already confusion to clear up. Earlier today, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson put the cost to the NHS of health tourism at £10 million to £20 million. On “World at One” this lunchtime, the Secretary of State said that he thinks it is more like £200 million. So which is it? Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence he has to support his claim?

Secondly, we need more detail on what the Government are proposing. Has the Secretary of State consulted those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on any proposed changes? There are practical questions on which health professionals will need reassurance. We have heard in the news today about the problems in the UK Border Agency. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to health professionals that they will not be used to plug the gaps that have been created by the Government’s severe cuts to the front line of the UK Border Force? Will they be given a simple way of checking eligibility and not be burdened by extra bureaucracy? Will these changes apply equally to planned and emergency care? If so, that could put health professionals in a difficult ethical position. Does the Secretary of State agree that care should always be provided in life-threatening situations, and will he take this opportunity to reassure health professionals on that important point?

Finally, the Secretary of State told “World at One” that one of the main reasons he was doing this was to relieve pressure on accident and emergency departments, particularly in London. While we commend moves to prevent abuse of the system, could he not better achieve his aim if he was not planning to close so many A and Es in London?

The Government have made a lot of assertions, but there is a real lack of policy clarity and evidence. Unless the Secretary of State can provide convincing answers to my questions, the House will be left with the distinct whiff of a cooked-up a story to suit the Government’s political purposes rather than a real drive to protect the NHS from abuse.

[Mr Hunt]

The Government are not going to take any lessons in overblown rhetoric when Labour Members talked about this problem for 13 years and did absolutely nothing about it. What was missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks was a proper apology for Labour’s total failure to control our borders during a period in office that saw a quadrupling of net migration. We do not know how many people are residing in this country illegally, but in January the London School of Economics published a report stating that it could be nearly 900,000 people, in which case the cost will not be a few millions but many, many times that. In 13 years, Labour did not change eligibility for access to free NHS services and did nothing to improve the collection of proper dues from people coming from outside the European Union.

The £20 million figure that the Prime Minister’s spokesman used this morning is the amount of uncollected debt that is owed to the NHS by foreign nationals. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my response, he would know that we believe—of course it is impossible to get exact figures on this because of the total mess that the previous Government created—that we identify less than half the people who should be paying for NHS care and collect less than half the money that should be collected.

Of course we will work with very closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure a co-ordinated approach. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard that the exemption for emergency care and for public health issues will remain in place, which is extremely important.

Let me finish by talking about A and E issues. The reality is that the LSE estimates that about 70% of those living illegally in the UK live in London, where A and Es happen to face some of the biggest pressures. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust opened a new A and E only in the past few years and it was built for a capacity of 65,000 people a year, but it is now seeing 120,000 a year. If the right hon. Gentleman’s Government had done something about this rather than talk about it, A and Es across London would not be facing the pressure they are now facing.

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We have heard some outstanding speeches this afternoon, and a good deal of consensus, which I am sure will be encouraging for the thousands, indeed millions, of people throughout the country who are campaigning on the issue that we are discussing. We must not forget that we are here for this debate because 110,000 people have signed a petition, in the belief that lives can be saved if Parliament will give the issue more attention and make changes. The debate would not be happening without the outstanding campaigning efforts of the OK Foundation and other heart organisations. I pay tribute in particular to Councillor Jake Morrison, one of the youngest councillors in the country and a shining example of the difference that councillors can make when they dedicate themselves to a campaign.

If it does nothing else, today’s debate will have achieved something, because the official record will contain a permanent memorial to Oliver King, and to the other young people mentioned in the debate, whose lives have tragically been lost. I want the debate to achieve far more than that, however, which is why I am leading for the Opposition today. I want today to be the start of a parliamentary journey in which the issues we are debating here will soon move to the Floor of the House and then, finally, into legislation supported, I hope, by a cross-party campaign. The debate is changing in the country. Every Member of this House will have seen campaigns in their local paper when lives have been lost, and those campaigns are calling for something to be done. It is now time for Parliament to show more leadership on the issue, which we have brought up the parliamentary agenda, and to make changes that will save lives.

We have heard from many hon. Members today, and the attendance of so many Members, not all of whom have spoken, shows the level of interest within Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) introduced the debate with a customarily outstanding speech, and he set out the issues very clearly. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke from personal experience, and given his commitment, we should all listen to what he has to say. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) have all made outstanding speeches.

The reason why people talk with such conviction and passion is that we have all seen the devastating effect of the unexpected loss of a life, particularly of a young person, but not necessarily so because this affects young and old. People have seen the inexplicable grief that a family feel when someone is brought down in their prime, often at the peak of their powers, playing sport.

That was certainly the case with Daniel Young in my constituency. He died in 2005 playing football for Leigh RMI football club. He was an outstanding young footballer, and at the time his mother, Dionne, told me that she bought everything for him to make his young football career a success. He had all the latest gear, but she said, “If somebody had just told me to pay for a screening test, it would have been the best £30 I could ever have spent, but I didn’t know anything about it. I didn’t know he was at risk.” My journey began there, and I started to look into the issue.

When I held office in the Department of Health, I asked the Department to look at the issue and to consider the case for screening, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton. While that work has been taking place, we have sadly seen further tragedies. Of course, we have spoken today about the loss of Oliver in Liverpool. He was another outstanding young sportsman whose talent was taken away from us. Oliver’s dad, Mark, was in a similar position to my constituent: he was not warned about the potential risks and, obviously, I am sure he now thinks about that all the time.

Close to my constituency, we have also recently lost a very young boy. Ciaran Geddes was seven years old, and he died in April 2012 playing football on his own. He was a member of the Winwick junior football club, who play in the same Warrington junior league in which my son used to play. That brings it very close to home, and it was such a young life. Ciaran’s mum, Marika, is now campaigning through the Ciaran’s Cause charity, which has given 27 defibrillators to schools across Warrington, with 10 more to be given soon. Marika says that, with every defibrillator the charity gives, she feels that Ciaran lives on. Three of the defibrillators donated to schools by the Oliver King Foundation have already been used, which brings home just how important it is to support those campaigns.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West and for Liverpool, Walton have said, we all saw the case of Fabrice Muamba—what an inspiring story that is —which shows just what can be achieved, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said, he was saved only because he fell at a premier league football ground. Obviously, he did almost die, but he survived because he was at the ground and because back-up was on hand. The poor kids who fall at grass-roots football locations are not so lucky, but simple support could be in place that might save many more lives.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I tried to be here for the start of the debate to hear the speeches that have been made on this most important subject.

There have been a number of high-profile deaths of young sportspeople on playing fields in Northern Ireland, where we have a very high rate of death by cardiac arrest anyway. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there have been positive outcomes from those tragedies—we have heard of examples from across England—and in Northern Ireland a new community resuscitation strategy has been launched that aims to train people in emergency life support and to provide more defibrillators. So, positives are coming out of those tragedies, and we must all redouble our efforts, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, to press people to really deliver.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on, because we see incredible activity across all four nations of the United Kingdom in the wake of those tragedies. Communities are pulling together, raising funds and donating defibrillators to schools and sports clubs, which brings me to my main point: leadership is now needed at national level to co-ordinate that activity and to bring clarity to the whole situation so that the public know where to find a defibrillator and how to use one. I hope I can persuade the Government to work with Opposition Front Benchers on that. There is no politics involved here; this is about saving lives where we can and doing things to make human progress in this country. Other countries are more focused than we have been, and because of that they are saving more lives.

My feeling is that provision is too random at the moment—it is happening in some places and not in others—and we need clarity on policy at a national level so that we can piggyback on all those local campaigns to make progress. I do not think there is a funding issue, because communities will find the money to put these things in the right places, but we must know where they need to go.

It is crucial to understand that, with the best will in the world, the ambulance service is often unable to make a difference for the people who sadly fall in a busy shopping centre, railway station or sports ground. Why? Because they are unable to get there within the Government target time of eight minutes, which is too late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West said, it is about that chain of survival; it is about equipping people with the knowledge and the kit at local level to start making a difference so that, when the professionals arrive, there is somebody there to save. That is what we have to do.

If we look at the statistics, 12 young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, die from sudden cardiac arrest in the UK every week. We underplay that problem. Until recently, the Department of Health NHS Choices website stated that the figure was 12 young people a year. The figure was corrected after it was pointed out to the Department, but it is important that the problem is not underestimated.

The clinching fact for why we should do more is that across the world, survival rates are very variable. According to the British Heart Foundation, in this country between 2% and 12% of people who suffer a sudden cardiac arrest survive, which is way too low. Elsewhere, in Seattle, as has been said, 50% of people survive, and in Japan, a public access campaign for AEDs has resulted in an immediate increase in rates of survival with minimum neurological impairment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The evidence is absolutely clear, so what about policy? What did we do while we were in Government? We must be honest. I am not here to say that we did everything right, but we did something. On the back of the focus on heart services, we introduced the national defibrillator programme in the middle of the last decade. It made a modest amount of funds available to purchase defibrillators to give to local organisations. However, I think that a mistake was made. As the programme was wound down, responsibility was passed to ambulance services.

There are two ways of looking at that. On the one hand, ambulance services have been doing brilliant work ever since as they have taken on the responsibility to improve communities’ capacity to respond. It is fantastic to see representatives of the ambulance service here today. I have certainly been impressed by what I have seen in the north-west. The team there is working with communities across the region to build their capacity to respond. The ambulance service has done good work, but national focus on the issue was lost when responsibility was passed down to the ambulance services, and we must acknowledge that.

That brings me to the crux of what I wanted to say, particularly to the Minister. I think that, between us, we can develop a set of simple policy calls that could make a difference and save lives. I will identify three in particular. As hon. Members have said, there is a compelling case for putting emergency life skills on the national curriculum and for making time available, perhaps as part of the personal, social, health and economic education component, to provide training for all young people. No young person should leave school without knowing how to provide CPR and use a defibrillator, because it is not all about defibrillators or CPR—the two together are important. If we train young people in those skills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, they will go home and talk to others about them.

I have seen what the British Heart Foundation does in schools. The courses that it delivers for young children are outstanding. It would be easy to add such courses to the national curriculum. My children tell me all the things that they are doing in school: the things that they are learning to make in home economics, and the kings and queens that they know about. It is odd that we do not ensure that every young person in this country leaves school at 16 knowing how to save a life. What more basic skill could we give them during their school years?

[Andrew Percy]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s attack on kings and queens, as a former history teacher, I attach importance to learning about them. An easy way to do what he suggests without crowding the curriculum too much would be simply to require all PE teachers to have the training, so that they can disseminate it as part of PE, which is required all the way through school. It would be a simple way to teach it without crowding the curriculum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Let me make it clear that I want children to learn about kings and queens. Yes, it must be possible. We are talking about a one-off course lasting a couple of hours. Surely it is possible to find the time to deliver it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is one way to do so. My point is that every child should leave with a certificate to say that they have done the course, they know how to use the skills and they are confident in using them.

[Julie Hilling]

A number of schools across Bolton West are already teaching emergency life support skills and Heartstart skills through the British Heart Foundation. They are teaching those skills in different ways: some are using half an hour during the registration period; some are teaching it as part of PE; some are teaching it as part of biology. There are multiple places within the curriculum, but the important thing is that they are taught as essential skills. Schools can then work out where best to teach them. They can be taught in half-hour blocks, and two hours a year is nothing.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is right. Let schools decide, but let us make it a clear legal requirement that they teach those skills. That is how to make a difference: by having a population that is much more educated in emergency first aid and CPR. The difference that it can make is huge. The Department for Education appears to be highly resistant; I do not know why. Surely we could link it to science or biology. Surely there are ways to deliver that teaching that are not irrelevant to the rest of the curriculum. That is our first request. Can we have a clear requirement?

Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton asked, is there not a case for a screening programme, particularly for at-risk young people, such as those who play lots of sport? I know that the UK National Screening Committee has considered the issue, partly because I asked it to, but still no firm recommendations have been made. Will the Minister consider it? It could be delivered for incredibly small amounts of resource in NHS terms; a screening test costs about £30 pounds. It should be available to any parent who wants to make use of it, particularly for young people who play sport every week. My son plays a lot of sport, and I watch him play every week. I have still not had him tested. It crosses my mind all the time that perhaps I should. It should be an easy thing to do; it should not be hard to find. The time has come to provide more screening.

My third and main point is to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to setting a minimum legal requirement for the number of defibrillators in public places. The time has come for that to be required by law. Hon. Members have referred to fire extinguishers and smoke alarms. There comes a point when technology allows something to be made much more widely available in public places and buildings, and I believe that we have reached that point with defibrillators.

[Mr George Howarth]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that workplaces could be added to the list?

[Andy Burnham]

I am sure they could. That is my appeal to the Government. I am not being prescriptive and saying that I want this, that or the other. A compelling case has been made for schools because of the loss of young lives. Shopping centres are also a possibility because of the footfall, as are train stations, airports and so on, and workplaces, particularly where people are under the extra pressure of carrying out intense physical activity.

The Government can advise on what the minimum requirement might be, but it is important to have one. Then we would have national clarity on where the public can expect to find a defibrillator. They would know where to locate one, because defibrillators would be required by law. Communities are crying out for it, and we do not have clarity at the moment. Earlier in the debate, someone asked where we would find a defibrillator in Parliament. I would not know. We need to start thinking about clarity and signage. If we did so, we might be able to have a national open register of defibrillators. It is not beyond the wit of man to ensure through an app on a phone that people in a situation where somebody had fallen could find out in real time, via modern technology, where the nearest defibrillator was. An effort could then be made to locate it as soon as possible.

Such things could be done. Lives could be saved. There is no excuse for complacency. We are not talking about huge amounts of money. This House could apply its mind to the issue, bring a little more focus to it and make proportionate and sensible requirements for where defibrillators must be located. Those locations could be publicised, and the public could be educated about how to use them. Why are we not doing it? We should be. I am not making a political point; I am being as critical of our time in government as I am of the current Government. We should be doing it. The case for action is unanswerable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has done us all a huge service by requesting this debate, which is long overdue. Other countries are way ahead of us in putting a proper, thought-through policy in place at every level: education, screening, prevention, and response through public access to defibrillators. My three requests can be given fair consideration by the Minister; if she were to act, we would secure something momentous for the people who have campaigned so vigorously on the issue over recent years. They know and people outside know that it is right to make a change, and some communities are just getting on and doing so; they are not even waiting for Parliament to do something, and that alone should be enough to make us think and act. If we made a commitment now, I am certain that in a matter of years we would see those statistics improve and more lives being saved which, at the end of the day, is the best memorial we can give to Oliver King, Ciaron Geddes, Daniel Young and all the young people who have tragically lost their lives.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

I thank everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate. A debate normally consists of one side of an argument versus the other side, but today we have had an outbreak of agreement and there has been no one side or the other. The debate is also momentous because I can say with my hand on my heart that I found myself in agreement with not only my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) but, most concerning, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), with whom I share history, because I was born and brought up in his constituency. I would be absolutely delighted to take up the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to visit, because it means a great deal to me. To be serious, however, because I was being flippant, this has been a good debate. I pay tribute to all those who signed the online petition and particularly to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) who opened the debate so well. He spoke with great passion and feeling and with considerable knowledge. We have had a good debate because of the outbreak of agreement and some well formed speeches, based on real argument, facts and figures, as well as on constituents’ experience.

Where are we? We all agree that defibrillators are good things; many hon. Members have spoken about the role that they can play and how we need considerably more of them. We all agree that we need more people trained in their use and in CPR and all manner of emergency measures for someone in a life-threatening situation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on her speech; she explained how training our children could bring us real benefits in the number of people trained, which would mean more lives being saved. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, who spoke about his experiences as a community first responder and about how volunteers from the community, not only young people at school, could be trained in such skills. He gave some good examples of how effectively such a programme could be rolled out. Other hon. Members talked about the value of screening and, for example, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for his comments on the need for screening.

Unfortunately, I am going to be somewhat of a fly in this otherwise rather pleasant ointment, because I do not agree with everything said about legislation. My view is that we do not need legislation. We already have all manner of programmes locally. I am not denying that our system is patchy and that some parts of the country are clearly doing a far better job than others, but it is understandable why the previous Government decided to put defibrillators and training down to the local ambulance trusts: they know their communities best and they are the people to ensure delivery, to the best of their abilities, to meet the needs of their communities.

I usually flinch from legislation, because it can take a long time to go through this place and because when we start to be prescriptive, we can run into all sorts of dangers. We have accepted that different communities have different needs, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for his compelling case for defibrillator training to be rolled out through our communities, depending on the nature of the community. For example, his constituency has a large number of parish councils—mine does not have as many, but it matters not—and he discussed putting pressure on and working and campaigning with the parish councils to start installing defibrillators. The parish councils can look at their own communities and at what would suit the needs of those communities. He then made a good point about work forces and the possibility of defibrillators in every place with more than a certain number of employees, and that is where the debate begins, because the difficulty with legislation lies in whether we look at a workplace with 50, 100 or 1,000 employees. The hon. Gentleman described how he could work with the trade unions in his patch and in effect, as a result, roll out a campaign of asking the work forces whether they think something is a good idea in a particular workplace or not in another. If we begin to prescribe, however, we will not deliver the sort of service that we want.

[Andy Burnham]

I realise the situation is slightly unusual: the Minister is defending the policy of the previous Government and I am asking her to reconsider and to go further. She said that ambulance services are best placed because they understand their communities. I partly agree, but the problem is that ambulance services do not have the power to insist on defibrillators going where they are most needed. The ambulance services are not the planning authority or the owners of the big buildings; they can only use persuasion and cannot ensure that defibrillators go where they really need to go, where lives can be saved. That is why legislation is necessary. If she is worried about overly burdensome legislation, it could start with a simple requirement to have a defibrillator publicly available in towns of, for example, 30,000 or more; it could be a modest requirement to get the ball rolling, as other countries have done.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for the intervention, but it rather makes my point. Once we stipulate, for the sake of argument towns of 30,000, we can imagine that in the towns without that level of population people will think, “Well, we’re all right, so we won’t do much work on it.” That is the problem with a more prescriptive approach.

While we are discussing ambulance services, and referring again to the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I wish to set the record straight on the East Midlands ambulance service. EMAS has been struggling for some time, with a number of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with. As mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has been involved in a campaign following the death of Joe Humphries, who did not live in her constituency but went to school there. As a result of her work, for which I am grateful, Leicestershire has 109 static defibrillators in public areas, 14 of which were installed in partnership with the Leicestershire police, and there are 24 Heartstart schools in the county.

The hon. Member for Bolton West also talked about the Heartstart scheme and its success in her area, although I can see that that may not be the case universally throughout the country. What is happening because of the debate, however, is that not only are we holding it and everything is being recorded in Hansard, but I will certainly go away and not hesitate to have that conversation with the relevant Minister in the Department for Education. An extremely forceful message has come out of this debate about the need for such training to be included in the national curriculum. I could not possibly give my own views on that, but the argument has been advanced extremely strongly and it has much merit and power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

I just wanted to put that on the record.

Many excellent points have been raised in the debate. What we have seen demonstrated during the past three hours is the clear and absolute desire for Parliament to act. I understand that the Minister has a difficult job. There are obstacles and challenges to overcome in relation to cardiac arrest and SADS, including raising awareness and overcoming people’s initial fear of helping someone who has sustained a cardiac arrest. The hope is that this debate will have teased out some of those things.

We have also heard about a number of issues that are not directly relevant to the Minister’s remit, so she may well have to have conversations not just with the relevant Education Minister, but with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and certainly with the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to the planning issues. However, that does not mean that she or the Government can abrogate their responsibilities. As has been highlighted, some of these things are cost-neutral; they just need action. We are not asking for money or, at worst, they cost very little. They simply require political will.

A few weeks ago, after the debate was announced, I received numerous phone calls and e-mails from organisations and charities that have been campaigning for years on this issue, so it is only right that they receive recognition for their efforts. Therefore, in praising again the efforts of the OK Foundation, I would also like to pay tribute to SADS UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the London Ambulance Service, Hearts and Goals, the Arrhythmia Alliance, the North West Ambulance Service, AED Locator, the Community HeartBeat Trust, Kays Medical and Liverpool football club and the great Steven Gerrard, the England captain, who has also recently come on board and lent his support—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is shaking his head.

There is growing momentum for action, and campaigners will not give up on this issue until progress is made. Including first aid training in the school curriculum would take up 0.2% of the timetable, but have an incalculable value.

[Andy Burnham]

Can I add my own tribute to the organisations—most of them—that my hon. Friend has just listed? Obviously, we do not doubt the Minister’s good will, but I think that we will have been disappointed by the response, particularly on the issue of legislation. With that in mind, may I encourage my hon. Friend to return to the Backbench Business Committee and make a request to bring this issue to the Floor of House? It seems to me that Parliament might take a different view from the Government on the need for legislation. I think that we should try to test the mind of Parliament on this issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be put off and will pursue his campaign in that direction.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that I think that, following the discussion that I will have immediately after this debate, the next step will be for us to push the Backbench Business Committee for a further debate in the main Chamber so that we push this issue to a vote, because I genuinely believe that defibs will save thousands of lives every year. No one in their right mind doubts that, so it is for the Government to show their resolve and to back the campaigners. A national lead is needed on this issue. We have not been given that today, so we will push in the future for that lead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to preventable cardiac deaths arising from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

Accountability and Transparency in the NHS

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

What happened at Stafford hospital was a betrayal of everything the NHS should stand for. We will face up to what went wrong and I will say more about that today. I repeat the apology to the families of people who suffered appalling abuse and neglect.

We must do more. People affected will be watching this debate and rightly wondering what it will achieve. They want to know what is going to change and when. The time has come for cross-party agreement on a way forward, and that is my hope for this debate. There must be more accountability and transparency, and that is why we support the motion.

We also support the Secretary of State’s ban on gagging clauses. It builds on statements made by the previous Government, which in turn were a response to previous scandals. That provides a crucial context for today’s debate.

In 1997 Labour inherited the job of responding to the Bristol heart scandal and the Harold Shipman murders. A series of major policy developments followed on patient safety, inspection and regulation. We passed the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, protecting whistleblowers. We published data that had never before seen the light of day on survival rates from heart and stroke care, and 1999 saw the first ever independent regulation of hospitals and care standards.

In 2001 we established the National Patient Safety Agency, which has sadly since been abolished and, in 2006, on the back of the public inquiry by Dame Janet Smith, the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council were reformed to end the professional closed shop. The truth is, however, that well-meaning as those steps were, there were places where the underlying culture of the NHS did not change and that is an important lesson for us all. When we make statements in this place and pass policies, we assume that everything changes on the ground, but it does not.

The previous Government made similar statements to that made by the Secretary of State today, yet the use of agreements persisted. Why was that? The answer is that there is a culture in the NHS—a tendency to pull down the shutters and push people and complaints away when things go wrong—that is more ingrained than we might think.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

On the subject of pulling down the shutters, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the world-leading expert, Professor Sir Brian Jarman, wrote to him in March 2010 listing concerns about 25 hospitals with high mortality rates, and that both the right hon. Gentleman and the Care Quality Commission took no action?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not. I was copied into an e-mail by Professor Brian Jarman in mid-March 2010 and, having asked the CQC to investigate what he had said, I wrote back to him on 31 March 2010. That was literally my last duty as Secretary of State for Health after the general election was called. I was not able to respond further to inquiries. It is important to provide some balance to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Changing the culture in the NHS requires vigilance and persistence. As Robert Francis says, we have all been too remote from the front line.

The foundation trust reform was a serious attempt to end the top-down culture in the NHS, bringing more accountability and transparency. If we look back, however, we will see that, when the centre stood back, there were places where an unhealthy local culture became even more firmly established. In some trusts a national top-down style was replaced with a local top-down, bullying style, which can be even worse. I can remember the shock I felt on reading the first Francis report’s finding that, on receiving FT status, one of the first things that the Mid Staffs board did was to resolve to hold more meetings in private. That was an audacious breach of the spirit of the legislation passed by this House.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State and I have been engaged on this issue for a very long time. Will he admit that it was totally unacceptable for him and his predecessor to refuse to have a public inquiry, which I demanded relentlessly, under the Inquiries Act 2005? Does he agree that it was wrong to give foundation trust status when it clearly should not have been given, and does he accept that I raised the issue of gagging orders and confidentiality in a health debate in 2009, not 2010?

[Andy Burnham]

Foundation trust status was not a matter for Ministers. It was a job for Monitor, so it has to answer that concern. The hon. Gentleman is right that we had many discussions about a public inquiry. He will remember that in July 2009, two months after I was appointed Secretary of State, I brought in Robert Francis QC to conduct an independent inquiry into what happened. I did not order a full public inquiry and I will explain the reason why later.

The difficult thing about the fact that the Mid Staffs board was holding more meetings in private was that we in this House had passed up our powers to intervene to stop it. That is another lesson we must learn: that the FT reform was naive in thinking that local autonomy would lead to improvement in all cases. In a national health service, there are areas where national direction is needed, and when things go wrong, there must be immediate powers of intervention, which, on my arrival in the Department in June 2009, I found I did not have. Foundation trust policy needs to be reviewed and adjusted to mitigate those dangers, including through a reconsideration of the power to de-authorise a failing foundation trust, which was recommended by the first Francis report, but repealed by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

We also need to consider targets and how they are used. Targets helped to deliver the lowest waiting times in history and that must not be forgotten. However, in places, they reinforced negative management practices. In focusing on only part of the patient experience, there was not sufficient focus on the overall patient experience and the whole person—a particular problem when it comes to caring for very elderly people whose needs are a blur of the physical, mental and social.

Robert Francis is right to call for a fundamental rethink of the way in which we care for older people, and I have put his recommendations at the heart of Labour’s policy review. However, there are more immediate things that we can do and I will spend the rest of my time on five substantive points.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will make some progress.

The first point is about implementation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Robert Francis for his work on this inquiry and the previous inquiry, which I commissioned. Robert Francis has taken the best part of three years to consider these matters in detail and has made 290 measured and proportionate recommendations. The people affected by these events should reasonably be able to expect that they will be implemented without delay.

I make a genuine offer today to the Secretary of State. If he brings forward proposals, he will have our support in speeding up implementation. I say that because I am becoming concerned about the timetable for the Government’s response. On 6 February, the Prime Minister told this House:

“We will study every one of the 290 recommendations in today’s report and we will respond in detail next month”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 281.]

Since then, the Government have commissioned a review of the recommendations, which is due to report in July. Although, like the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), I have great respect for Don Berwick, I am surprised that the response to a long public inquiry is to set up another review. Is it still the Government’s intention to respond in detail this month? Although I welcome this debate, it is narrow in focus, so will the Secretary of State consider having a full day’s debate in Government time? Instead of more delays and reviews, we need action and a timetable for implementation. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would respond to my offer today.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I am making some progress.

The second area where more transparency and accountability is urgently needed is on staffing levels. If the Government are not yet able to commit to all the recommendations, I ask them to expedite their response to Robert Francis’s important recommendation on patient-staff ratios. The board of Mid Staffs embarked on a dangerous programme of staff cuts, and yet public and staff representatives had no outside guidance to challenge it. The chief nursing officer said yesterday that staffing should be a local decision. Surely the lesson of Mid Staffs is that there is a need for much clearer national standards and guidelines, as suggested by the Francis report?

This week, the Care Quality Commission reported that one in 10 hospitals in England and, worse, one in five learning disability and mental health services do not have adequate staffing levels. Surely that should ring alarm bells in the Department as it suggests that parts of the NHS are already forgetting the lessons of the recent past.

The third area on which we need a clear statement from the Government today is the accountability and transparency of all organisations providing NHS services. Under “any qualified provider”, the Government are persisting with their assumption that all NHS contracts should be open to full competitive tender. Despite a promise to rewrite the section 75 regulations that are being made under the 2012 Act, my reading of the rewritten regulations is that regulation 5 will not let doctors decide, but will in effect force clinical commissioning groups to open tender for contracts. That raises the prospect that there will be a significant increase in the coming years in the number of private and voluntary sector organisations providing NHS services.

If we believe in transparency and accountability, surely they have to apply across the board and on a level playing field. The problem is that private and voluntary sector organisations are not subject to the same strictures on freedom of information and whistleblowing. If action is not taken, we face the prospect of a serious reduction in transparency and accountability. Our attempts to find out new information under FOI requests on providers selected under AQP have hit the brick wall of “commercial confidentiality”. I say to the Secretary of State that that is not good enough. Accountability and transparency must always be paramount, as the motion says.

Will the Secretary of State require all providers of NHS services to adhere to FOI principles, and will he ensure that whistleblowers working in organisations that provide NHS services have the legal protections that he has announced today? I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on this subject, which has attracted the support of 109 Members.

The fourth area on which the people of Stafford need openness and transparency is the future of their hospital. They will understandably be worried about the recent recommendation from Monitor that the trust should be placed into administration. People will recall, as I said to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) a moment ago, that I commissioned Robert Francis in July 2009 to conduct an independent inquiry. I know that many people, including the hon. Gentleman, wanted me to go further and order a full public inquiry, but I stopped short because I was concerned about the effect that that would have on the hospital and its viability.

All of us in this House now have a responsibility to help this hospital heal. After all that they have been through, it would be highly unfair to the people of Stafford if, at the end of all this, they were to lose their hospital or their A and E. They deserve a safe and sustainable hospital and I hope that the Secretary of State’s response to Monitor’s recommendation will map out a way to achieve that.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one final time—to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley).

[Mr Burley]

I represent the other constituency that is served by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Is the right hon. Gentleman implying that it is the holding of a public inquiry that has led to the threat to Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals?

[Andy Burnham]

No, that is not what I am saying. I commissioned a second-stage—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cannock Chase should listen to the answer. I commissioned a second-stage review before the general election after Robert Francis delivered his first-stage review to me. I simply said that I took that judgment because I was worried that if there was ongoing uncertainty about the hospital for a long period, it may affect its viability. I have seen the statements from Monitor that there is a concern about the future viability of the hospital. I am making an appeal, on a cross-party basis, to say that all of us owe the people of Stafford a safe and sustainable hospital. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that sentiment.

My fifth and final point concerns staff morale.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not.

This is a difficult time in the NHS. The chief executive of the NHS has described it as a period of “maximum risk” as it struggles with the simultaneous challenges of efficiency and reorganisation. Morale in the NHS is low and one thing is clear: patient care will not improve if it stays like that.

The Secretary of State is right to speak out for patients when the NHS falls short, and he should always do that. However, statements should be fair and should recognise the good that the vast majority of staff do, day in, day out, and the pressure that they are under, which is not of their own making. That balance has been missing from recent Government statements. I say to the Secretary of State that hospitals and NHS staff are not coasting—far from it. They are working flat out, with some coping better than others with the pressure that they are under.

Politicians need to do more than just point out the failings of hospitals and NHS staff. We all need to support them with proper staffing levels on the wards. We all need to support them to speak out, wherever they work. We all need to stop the reorganisations that distract them from patient care. Those are the lessons of Stafford. Today, let us all resolve to face up to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I will make some progress and then I will take interventions from both sides of the House.

Sir David Nicholson told the Health Committee last week that in the NHS as a whole, patients were not the centre of the way the system operated. Which party was in power when that culture was allowed to operate? If Sir David has been held to account, so too must the Labour party be held to account. The Francis report rightly states that Ministers were not personally responsible for what happened at Mid Staffs, and I have no doubt that no Labour Minister would have condoned, knowingly allowed or wanted the events at Mid Staffs to happen. We also know from the report that the pursuit of targets at any cost was a central driver of what went wrong. As the report set out, above all Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust failed to tackle an “insidious negative culture” involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities. It went on:

“This failure was in part the consequence of allowing a focus on reaching national access targets,”.

Ministers, not civil servants, are ultimately responsible for the culture of the NHS, and it is clear that during that period a culture of neglect was allowed to take root in which the pursuit of targets at any cost compromised the quality of care that patients received, and made it harder for front-line staff to treat people with dignity and compassion.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State but it is not fair to people in the NHS for him to say that Stafford equals everywhere in the NHS, and that we can take one failing—a terrible failing, as I said in my speech—in a locality and apply it to the whole NHS. He must acknowledge that NHS staff did an incredible job to end the situation when people were spending months and years on waiting lists, and even dying on them.

[Mr Hunt]

I acknowledge the brilliant work done by NHS staff and, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman says, I do that in every speech that I make on these matters. I will not, however, accept the complacency that says that problems at Stafford hospital were localised and happened only in one place. If we are to sort out those problems, we have a duty to root them out anywhere in the NHS that they occur.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about waiting times targets. Let us be clear: there is an important role for targets in a large organisation such as the NHS. Without the four-hour A and E target, or the 18-week elective waiting time target, access to NHS services would not have been transferred and I accept that the previous Government deserve credit for that. It was right to increase spending on the NHS, although it is curious that Labour now wants to cut the NHS budget. Labour did however—this is where Labour Members should listen rather than barrack—make three huge policy mistakes, and the right hon. Gentleman must accept that it is not simply a question of Government policy not being implemented in every corner of the NHS. Those three mistakes contributed to the culture of neglect that we are now dealing with.

The first mistake—a huge mistake—was that Labour failed to put in place safeguards to stop weak, inexperienced or bad managers pursuing not only bureaucratic targets but targets at any cost. That is exactly what happened at Mid Staffs, where patient safety and care were compromised in a blind rush to achieve foundation trust status. Secondly, Labour failed to set up proper, independent, peer-led inspections of hospital quality and safety that told the public how good and safe their local hospital was. Instead of a zero-harm attitude to patient safety, we have a culture of compliance and the bureaucratic morass that is the current Care Quality Commission. Thirdly, Labour failed to spot clear warnings when things went wrong. The Francis report lays out a timeline of 50 key warning signs between 2001 and 2009. Why did Ministers not act sooner? If those warnings were not being brought to the attention of Ministers, why did they not build a system in which they were? Instead, there was a climate in which NHS employees who spoke out about poor care were ignored, intimidated or bullied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress.

This debate is about accountability. I have been doing this job for six months, and in nearly every exchange on the Floor of the House, the Opposition have avoided engaging in substance, preferring instead to make baseless allegations about the Government’s motives in respect of the NHS. I put it to the House that we have shown our commitment to the NHS time and again through a protection of the budget; a willingness to face up to big challenges, whether in clinical commissioning, the funding of social care or the need to ensure that care is prioritised throughout the system—

[Andy Burnham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hunt]

No, the right hon. Gentleman needs to listen to my point. If Labour is truly committed to the NHS, it, too, has to show that it has learned. I did not hear that in his speech. Labour Members need to accept that they made some terrible policy mistakes that led to a culture of neglect. They must recognise that the party that claims to speak for the most vulnerable in society betrayed many vulnerable people, with tragic consequences. Only then will the public know that the lessons of Mid Staffs have been learnt—not just by the NHS, not just by civil servants, not just by Government, but by all sides of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

I am talking about those who were Secretaries of State in the last Administration. In response to an intervention during his speech, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, “I passed it on to Monitor.” The attitude that leads people to push away the process of decision making and take no responsibility for the outcomes needs to end.

[Andy Burnham]

Surely, as a clinician, the hon. Gentleman would resent the idea of politicians’ interfering in the independent clinical regulation of hospitals. I did not do nothing. Within days I had asked the Care Quality Commission to investigate the outliers that Brian Jarman had given me. I will not sit here and accept the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that I complacently did nothing. That is not true, and he should not repeat it in the House.

[Dr Lee]

Despite that, nothing changed, did it? The CQC has a terrible reputation in my profession, and to have handed the matter over to it—when it was run by someone who was implicated at Mid Staffordshire—is not a defence.

Let me broaden the discussion to something that I may know something about: practising medicine in organisations run by the Department of Health. I can tell the House that the prevailing atmosphere is one in which attention is not drawn to problems. There is a fear for jobs down the line. Let me give an example. When I was a junior doctor, I misused a photocopying machine in a hospital. Within hours, I received a phone call from a middle-grade doctor telling me that if I did that again, it would affect my reference. The phone call, I was told, had been authorised by the then consultant general surgeon at St Mary’s, Ara Darzi. I reflected on that at the time. It made me feel rather intimidated. [Interruption.] The prevailing mood in hospitals was that seeing or doing something wrong could adversely affect a person’s future career.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

We all have lessons to learn about all matters relating to these questions, but the guidelines also talk about the necessity of chasing and following up in the Department. It is probably a question of the correspondence unit in the Department and the private office. There was a failure and the Francis report made it absolutely clear that the guidelines were not complied with and were not operated effectively. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will recall that that was what the report said.

I referred to these matters in my witness statement, and Una O’Brien, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, also made it clear in her evidence that if such letters were received now, they would receive an immediate response, irrespective of whether the hospital was a foundation trust or not. The bottom line is that there was a failure within the Department and by successive Secretaries of State. The shadow Secretary of State acknowledged in his evidence that he looked at these letters. I will not dispute that. However, not only were the matters not dealt with satisfactorily, but I cannot absolve the Secretaries of State from their failure to agree to the 2005 Act inquiry.

I do not need to rehearse the history of the case. I asked not once, not twice, but repeatedly, and I had to urge and persuade the shadow Secretary of State at the time and also—I am glad that, to his great credit, he decided to do so—the present Prime Minister who, as Leader of the Opposition, decided in the light of my representations and no doubt those of others to have the 2005 Act inquiry. Without that we would not be discussing the Francis inquiry—the present one, not the previous one, important though that was—and the others. They were Government inquiries, but they did not do the job in the way the present inquiry did.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not strictly true to say that that was a Government inquiry. I brought in Robert Francis—will he acknowledge that?—in July 2009 to conduct an independent inquiry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, in presenting his findings Robert Francis said that he felt that more people had come forward because of the nature of that inquiry.

[Mr Cash]

I will let the matter rest at that point for the present purpose.

I move on to the next question of accountability, with respect to Sir David Nicholson. I referred to Sir David in a number of debates way back as far as 2009. I also referred to him in my evidence to the Health Committee, in my witness statement and in correspondence with the Francis inquiry. In my judgment, for the reasons that I have already given, there was a systems failure with respect to this whole terrible tragedy, not only in relation to Mid Staffordshire, but more generally.

We need to turn a new page. I am not saying that Sir David should receive a P45 now. What I am saying is that, sooner rather than later, it is essential that he departs his post. I disagree with the Secretary of State and therefore also, I admit, with the Prime Minister on this matter, and so do many others. Accountability must mean what it says, and in this context it means carrying the can. The whole saga took place on Sir David’s watch, even though he was not at West Midlands for more than a certain time, and the problems that have arisen carry with them issues of accountability.

I acknowledge that Robert Francis referred to scapegoats. It is not, as has been said before and I repeat, a question of blaming scapegoats. It is a question of responsibility and where it lies at the time. In my judgment it did not lie only with the Secretaries of State of the time. In fairness, they have apologised.

I conclude with a statement made by David Nicholson at a conference that took place a few months ago. He made it clear in that statement that he took personal responsibility for what had happened. It is very important that we recognise that he has apologised and that he has made a statement that is clearly an admission that he lost the plot when, as he put it, ward 10 in Mid Staffs was under severe stress. That is the problem and I believe he has to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

May I thank the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and say how sobering it was to listen to those stories? I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in paying tribute to the families and loved ones of patients from Stafford and Cannock who had such appalling care and praise them for their strength in telling their stories. My hon. Friend and I will fight against any serious downgrading of Stafford hospital and, more importantly, from my perspective, any possible closure of Cannock hospital, which is managed by the same trust. I note that the Staffordshire Newsletter today launched its “Support Stafford Hospital” campaign, which I am sure we will both be supporting.

Today’s motion calls for accountability and transparency in the NHS. In relation to Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, there are three areas that most need accountability and transparency: the granting of foundation trust status in 2009; the opposition to the public inquiry into what went on; and the “targets at all costs” culture. I will deal with each in turn.

We have the indignity and embarrassment of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust being abolished by Monitor only five years after being granted that status. I want Members to think about that for a second. Only five years ago it was considered so outstanding and such an exemplar of compassionate care and sound finances that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) awarded it foundation trust status on 1 February 2008.

[Andy Burnham]

May I just correct the hon. Gentleman? I was not a Minister in the Department of Health on 1 February 2008. Furthermore, the awarding of foundation trust status was the responsibility of Monitor, not Ministers in the Department.

[Mr Burley]

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s second point is incorrect; as I understand it, the Secretary of State—I accept that that was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)—signs off the awarding of foundation trust status. We know that he admitted to the public inquiry that he looked at just four lines of civil service evidence about foundation trust status before signing it off. Is that good enough for a Secretary of State? Why did he not look at it in more detail? Was he not really bothered? I think that was a dereliction of his duty to ensure public health in Staffordshire and that he should have the decency to apologise to the people in the Public Gallery who have come here today from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

Alternatively, was the foundation trust status signed off because of the culture of targets at any cost under the previous Government? Was organisational form, whatever it means, more important than patient care? We know locally that they wanted to prove that their foundation trust policy was a success, and that took priority over what it really meant for patients and their care. Members do not have to listen only to me on that point. Here is what a Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust non-executive said just this week in a public meeting in Rugeley in my constituency:

“Our problems started when they made 200 nurses redundant in 2008 to achieve an acceptable financial footing for Foundation status, but care standards slipped thereafter and by 2009 they had a £2m deficit.”

Everyone knows that huge pressure was put on David Nicholson by his political masters to have a foundation trust in the west midlands, and poor little Mid Staffordshire was the one that was forced through. In the interests of the accountability and transparency that the motion calls for, I want to hear an apology from those who forced through foundation trust status at a time when people were dying from appalling care and the trust was going bankrupt.

This is not just about politicians. If anybody is in any doubt about how ingrained the targets culture had become, let me quote from an old press release from Mid Staffordshire trust that I found, dated 3 October 2002. It has been taken off its website but is still findable if one looks around on the internet. It says, under the heading, “Babies’ Service of Remembrance”:

“A short service of Remembrance for those whose babies have died in the past few years is being held in the Pilgrim Chapel at Stafford General Hospital.”

Just seven days later, under the heading, “Good News from Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust”, it said that David O’Neill, the chief executive, was

“delighted to announce that the Trust has been short-listed to the last three for the National Partnership Industry Award for our Bed Management System”.

This culture is absolutely astonishing, and it simply has to change.

We have now had the public inquiry and Robert Francis has laid out in full gory detail the horrendous failings at Stafford hospital. One might have thought, given what went wrong, that there would have been cross-party support for a public inquiry, but not so. I presume that Labour Members now support the findings of the Francis inquiry. There were certainly many Labour MPs at the all-party health group meeting with Robert Francis on Tuesday, but I want to know how many of them were among the 260 Labour MPs who voted against a Commons motion calling for a public inquiry on 18 May 2009. [Interruption.] These might be uncomfortable facts for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, but let me point out that Labour Members ignored 81 requests for a full public inquiry into Mid Staffs between January 2009 and May 2010. They received 20 letters from MPs, 36 letters from members of the public and 25 letters from organisations. They ignored the families who protested outside the Department of Health for a public inquiry, including people from Cure the NHS.

The right hon. Member for Leigh, as he has said today, rejected a full public inquiry on the grounds that it would “distract the management”. He is welcome to intervene to tell me whether he now accepts that that judgment was wrong.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I asked Robert Francis to conduct two independent inquiries into what happened? It is not the case that I was not doing anything. I made that judgment because I wanted to get to the truth of what happened while not overburdening the hospital with the job of getting better. I tried to strike that balance, and that is why I reached the judgment that I did.

[Mr Burley]

I will accept, as will, I think, everyone in this House, that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to answer the question again. He will not say whether that judgment was a mistake, and until he does so we cannot take what he says seriously.

The then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, joined in the refusal to have a full public inquiry. He said to The Birmingham Post on 19 March 2009,

“I really don’t think with the greatest respect that a public inquiry is going to take us any further forward”.

Will he intervene to tell me whether he will be writing to The Birmingham Post to tell people whether it has taken us any further forward? He can scowl across the Chamber, but I am afraid that that is no answer.

In the interests of accountability and transparency, we need to know why the Labour Government opposed a full public inquiry into Mid Staffordshire. Why were they so afraid of finding out the truth of what went on? Is it really so important to protect the reputation of the NHS as an institution rather than to protect the patients whom it serves and who ultimately pay for it?

There are now abounding claims and counter-claims about Stafford and Cannock hospitals as a result of the indignity of having our foundation trust abolished. One would have thought that having forced through foundation trust status and opposed a public inquiry, Labour locally would have some contrition, but sadly not. The Labour leader of my local council and Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Cannock Chase are now teaming up to

“fight plans they feel are aimed at privatising Cannock hospital.”

The leader of the council said that he was launching a petition against being

“victims of Tory privatisation plans”.

There are no plans in the Monitor report to privatise Cannock hospital, so I want to know where the local Labour party is getting its information from. In fact, as a result of the FT status, private providers are already operating in Cannock hospital. I note that there were no protests from Labour councillors when private health facilities were introduced into Cannock hospital. Again in the interests of accountability and transparency in the NHS, I call on Labour Front Benchers to stop their parliamentary candidates and council leaders scaremongering among local people for political ends. They cannot fight privatisation if there are no plans to privatise anything. They cannot start a petition to save Cannock Chase hospital if the Monitor report suggests making it a centre of excellence for orthopaedic elective surgery in the west midlands. They cannot oppose a public inquiry and then welcome all of its findings. They cannot force through foundation trust status for its own sake rather than for what it will achieve for patients; and if someone does force it through and it has the reverse, perverse effect of causing appalling care, unnecessary deaths and the bankrupting of the trust and its abolishment just five years later, they should be man enough to apologise.

I agree that we need to be more accountable and transparent. That starts from the top with Secretaries of State and goes down to the bottom to the local council leaders and their parliamentary candidates.