Vaccine Damage Payments Act

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) on securing this debate and on the moving way in which he opened it.

I am here to speak briefly on behalf of constituents. Their daughter was born healthy in 1972, but they noticed a sudden change after she received the whooping cough vaccination. Unfortunately, their daughter had suffered brain damage. They tell me that she was examined by several doctors, including doctors at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool. They have lived with the damage done by the vaccine ever since. They have looked after their daughter for 42 years at considerable cost, both physically and mentally, and they are members of the vaccine victim support group, which is fighting for compensation for all those who have suffered severe adverse reactions after being vaccinated under the Government vaccination programme.

My constituents tell me that, as they are now ageing, they are desperately anxious to provide for the future of their daughter. It must certainly be true that parents now in their 60s and 70s with children in their 40s and 50s will feel the same way. My constituents have sacrificed everything over the past 42 years to ensure that their daughter is loved and cared for by her family, rather than by the state. To date, the family have received only what were purely initial and top-up vaccine damage payments—certainly not compensatory payments—to cover four decades of care. As my hon. Friend said, even the £120,000 top rate of payment under the current scheme would really only pay for one year of care, and my constituents have not even received payments at that level.

My constituents feel that all responsible Governments should have a vaccination programme, but they feel that Governments then have a moral responsibility to care for those whose lives are damaged by vaccination. They referred me to the paper, “Reform of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979”, that was presented to Ministers in October 2011. They point to the recommendation in that paper that any vaccine recommended by Government should be covered by the Act. My hon. Friend detailed a number of vaccinations that were left out of the Act, and they should not be. More modern vaccines, such as the HPV vaccine that was referred to, should be included. Importantly, to avoid expensive litigation, the scheme should cover proper compensatory levels.

We can only imagine the pain endured by my constituents’ having a daughter, the first child of four children, suffering after vaccine damage. My constituents are now in their 60s and very worried about the future of their daughter. They are finding it more and more difficult to give her the time and care that she needs 24 hours a day. Their son tells me that seeing his parents struggle with a 42-year-old daughter, severely disabled as a result of vaccine damage, but not having received adequate compensation, is a total injustice.

My constituents tell me, and I imagine we would all agree, that my hon. Friend has fought tirelessly for their cause, and I thank him for that work. It was only recently that I got to know of the case of my constituents and their daughter through the work of the all-party group, which they recommended I join, and I was happy to do so. I have spoken only briefly, but what I have said on their behalf speaks for the reason why the victims of vaccine damage should get proper compensation and not rely on expensive litigation, which, as my hon. Friend has said, is not feasible.

Four decades of care is a great deal to give—avoiding the care having to fall on the state—but the family members, the unpaid carers of victims of vaccine damage, should be supported. All carers should be properly supported with compensatory payments, and I hope that this debate today has raised the issue so that it will go forward into a future Parliament and that real action will be taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

My sense is that the scheme, which aims to provide proportionate help, has got the balance about right, but I have heard the concerns expressed today. It is worth noting that successive Governments have considered this matter and chosen not to alter the scheme. That consideration would have involved looking at it in some detail. Equally, I note gently that the shadow Minister, analysed the situation and asked many questions, but made no commitments, although she aspires to sit in my place in just a few weeks.

The House will note that many successive Governments of different parties have looked at the scheme and have, I think, drawn the same conclusion, which is that the balance is about right. That is not to say that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are not listened to: far from it. I have listened to his concerns and will take those away and reflect on them.

There are no current plans to make any changes to the time limits. Again, the hon. Gentleman made his case about that, as did other hon. Members.

[Barbara Keeley]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but this may be the last chance to comment. I talked about a case where the payments are not in any way compensatory. Previous Governments lifted the level of payment substantially up to £120,000. Can she not give any hope to parents in their 60s who are struggling with care? Care is expensive, and increasingly so under her Government. What can she say to give some hope to parents in that situation, of whom, as we have heard, there are very many, including my constituents?

[Jane Ellison]

The challenge is that a number of aspects of the scheme, which has existed under successive Governments, make some individual cases particularly hard. The hon. Lady has touched on some reasons for that in her contribution.

The Government have no plans to change how the scheme is run, as one might expect in the last week before the House rises before the general election, and there are no plans to review it, as I have said. However, we are about to have a new Parliament. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and other hon. Members may wish to return to this subject. The work of the all-party group will continue. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he wants to raise the reform of the Act in the new Parliament. The shadow Minister has made some points, but no commitments. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway may therefore wish to use the next few weeks lobbying within his own party, if he cannot speak in Parliament, making his case forcefully to his colleague.

I note the concerns expressed today. I am not in a position to say that the scheme will be reviewed. As is the way of these things, all these matters will now be for a new Government to consider. However, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway put his points thoughtfully, as ever, and they have been thoughtfully taken on board and will be considered.

Francis Report: Update and Response

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

May I support the suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to extend to social care the measures recommended by Sir Robert Francis? I know from my own casework how hard it is for a whistleblower in social care working for a small organisation to reveal issues of bad care. In addition, the Health Select Committee pointed out that many whistleblowers suffer in their careers, including in social care, lose their job and find it hard to find a new post, and it recommended that whistleblowers who are vindicated receive an apology and practical redress. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s argument. Just as poor care has been identified in hospitals, so we have seen terrible examples of things happening in residential care and of inadequate domiciliary care. It is more complex, because the delivery of social care is more diffuse, but one way to deal with this is through the proper integration of health and social care and the proper assessment of quality based on the entire package of care that people receive, not just in individual institutions but across the board. We are doing a lot of work on that.

NHS Major Incidents

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. It is why many people in the NHS will be so astonished to hear the shadow Secretary of State, who presided over a culture where precisely that kind of leaning from on high happened, making it difficult for people to make those local operational decisions in the interests of patients, now trying to make a political point. This was a local decision and it was confirmed today that Ministers had no involvement in it, and Labour should stop trying to score political points.

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

This Government caused confusion about decision making and accountability because of their reckless and expensive restructuring of the NHS. Now, to achieve what the Secretary of State wants to achieve, he has to resort to the sorts of measures we are discussing. We have had two major incidents declared in local hospitals in Salford in one week recently, and I have great concerns that this sort of guidance means that it is harder for clinicians to take the steps necessary to resolve the A and E crisis. They should not have to think about the issues listed in this document: politics and whether there is a risk of reputational damage. I do not want Salford Royal hospital and the Royal Bolton hospital thinking, “We can’t do this because of reputational damage.” This should be done entirely on the basis of clinicians’ reasoning.

[Mr Hunt]

That advice was issued in the west midlands, and not in Salford. The hon. Lady talked about the reorganisation. Well, that reorganisation means that we have been able to afford 82 more hospital doctors and 589 more nurses in her area, which is helping her constituents. Salford is one of the best examples of integrated care in the country, which is why any hospital declaring a major incident should think about the impact on the rest of the NHS locally. That is what the guidance says.

NHS (Government Spending)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

It was quite a simple question. The Minister could have dealt with it there and then, and pushed the matter to one side. I half expected him to do so. But no, that is not the answer he gave. Perhaps we are seeing the return of Michael Howard. The patient passport rears its head again.

What else can we expect from the Conservatives? More privatisation and more market-based changes.

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

I, too, serve on the Health Committee. Alongside the things that we have heard about today and the concerns expressed by Opposition Members following the Health and Social Care Act 2012, is it not a really worrying development that £1.2 billion of cancer services and end-of-life care services in Staffordshire and Stoke— a wide geographical area—are being tendered out in a 10-year contract? That is a risky thing to do and it has never been done before for a single disease. Will all patients with cancer who are at the end of their lives be able to rely on those services, given that the majority of those tendering are private companies? Is that not the big issue? Will the Minister answer that point?

[Chris Leslie]

That is the sort of ideological stain that has pervaded the NHS policies of recent years. We must recognise that, should the Conservatives win the general election, we will see more of the same. That is the course the NHS will pursue. Not just that, but the Government breach the NHS constitution time and again on safeguards, waiting times, ambulance responses and cancelled operations. The squeeze on resources will force patients increasingly to pay for private treatment.

It fell to the generation after the second world war to build the NHS. It fell to Labour in 1997, after 18 years of Conservative neglect, to save the NHS. Today, it once more falls to Labour to rescue the NHS and rebuild it for the 21st century. The choice is stark: a tangible and fully funded 10-year plan to boost investment in our NHS with Labour, versus more decline and more of the same from the Tories, as they dismantle the NHS by stealth. It is beyond doubt that the NHS as we know it cannot survive another five years under the Tories, because once the NHS is gone, we will never get it back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

Through the “Agenda for Change” settlement, many nurses will receive an incremental pay rise worth an average, I think, of between 3.2% and 3.4%. On top of that, we have come to an agreement with the unions to give a 1% rise, particularly to the lower paid NHS staff. That is something I hope the hon. Lady welcomes. It is worth highlighting that one of the biggest things that supports front-line staff is increasing numbers. In Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, the number of hospital doctors since 2010 has increased by 25 and the number of nurses by 62. That shows that the investment we are making at national level is paying dividends at local level in her trust.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I am going to make some progress and I am sure I will give way to the hon. Lady later on.

The investment we are making in the NHS also means that our NHS is caring for more patients than it has ever done before. Last year, compared with Labour’s last year in office, there were 1.2 million more episodes of in-patient care, including 850,000 more operations, 6.1 million more out-patient appointments, 3.6 million more diagnostic tests and almost 460,000 more GP referrals seen by a specialist for suspected cancer, meaning that under this Government more patients are receiving early referral for important care. We have also reduced the number of administrators in our NHS by 20,000. That is freeing up more cash to be reinvested in the front line of patient care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

Well, I am a doctor. It is a pity there are so many professional politicians in the Labour party. Had they experience of real life, they might be able to make a more valuable contribution to debates in this place.

In 2015-16, funding for front-line NHS services in England will be £2 billion higher. Of this additional funding, £1.5 billion will go to local NHS services to meet the ever-growing demand for services and to provide better care for the frail elderly and people with long-term medical conditions, such as heart disease and dementia. In addition, £200 million will go towards piloting new care models set out in NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”; £250 million will provide the first tranche of the new £1 billion fund, spread over the next four years, for investment in new primary and community care facilities; and about £30 million will go to the NHS to develop the best approaches to caring for young people with eating disorders in both in-patient and community settings—which further answers the question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree by confirming this Government’s commitment to providing better care for people with mental illnesses.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

I will give way one more time, but after that I will not give way for a while, as I want to make some progress.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Minister for giving way, particularly as he is a doctor. He never took into account my real-life experience in IT when we debated care.data, so he wants to be careful about saying that people do not have real-life experience—several of us have real-life experience in different industries, but he does not take that into account.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Point to them.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am pointing at myself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Heaton-Harris, will you allow the intervention to take place? I am sure you will have a chance to join the debate when you catch my eye later. However, I do not want interventions to be overlong either, because we do not have much time left in the debate. Barbara Keeley, will you therefore please be brief?

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister address the issue of delayed discharges and the impact of cutting community resources? We have touched on social care in general practice, funding for which has really been cut, but the big issue that comes up again and again before the Health Select Committee concerns the loss of thousands of district nurses. I heard yesterday that in the north-west agencies do not even have supply district nurses. Will he address the matter of those community resources? He is talking about community care for the elderly and vulnerable. What will be done about district nurses?

[Dr Poulter]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, front-line staff use IT and understand the importance of joining it up to benefit patient care while also protecting confidentiality. On the point about district nurses, she is right that we need to transform the model of care, which is why the Government set up the £5.2 billion better care fund—to ensure we join up more effectively what happens between our acute hospitals, the wider NHS and adult social care. This approach will be transformative, delivering better care for the frail elderly and providing more care in people’s homes.

Of course, part of that is about changing work force models and ensuring that staff who have traditionally worked only in hospitals, supporting people with long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis, can also work in the community. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering away, but I have answered her question in an informed and sensible way, having spoken about how our work force models need to change as part of our investment in integrating and joining up care so that patients looked after now in a purely hospital environment can have access to staff across both community and hospital care, which is important for people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and dementia. I hope she can support that.

It is also important to consider some of the equally important funding decisions we have made in maternity care. In 2013-14, we provided £35 million of capital funding for the NHS to improve birthing environments, which represents the single biggest capital investment in maternity care for decades. That has benefited more than 100 maternity units, including through the establishment of nine new midwifery-led birthing centres in eight areas, and transformed many local maternity services across the country. Improvements delivered by our maternity investment fund include: more en-suite bathroom facilities in more than 40 maternity units, providing more dignity and privacy for women; more equipment such as beds and family rooms in almost 50 birthing units, allowing dads and families to stay overnight and support women while in labour or if their baby needs neonatal care; and bereavement rooms and quiet areas at nearly 20 hospitals to support bereaved families after the thankfully rare but always tragic loss of a baby.

Our £35 million maternity investment has made a big difference to the experience mums and families have of NHS maternity services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

That is where the hon. Gentleman’s party falls down. Labour Members obsess about cash and forget about clinical operation. That is why we ended up with crises such as that at Mid Staffs hospital, with people dying in their beds because of bureaucracy, target setting and obsession with process rather than the care of patients.

The Opposition also have an obsession with the private sector. My father had to have a new knee, unfortunately. He went to the local hospital, which happens to be the one that the constituents of the hon. Member for Nottingham East attend. Rather than being treated in the NHS Queen’s medical centre, he was sent to a hospital in Sherwood in his constituency, which looked after him very well. It was a private hospital and this was in 2008—under the previous Government. The NHS was making use of private services back then. It was very efficient and well delivered. I do not understand this obsession with the private sector. We need to remember that private companies make the drugs that the NHS uses; private companies make all the crutches and the ambulances; and GPs are, in effect, private companies. It works very well. As long as we can deliver a service that is free at the point of use and run in the most efficient way but with the highest levels of care and consideration, I think that is the right place to be.

[Barbara Keeley]

Let me return to my earlier point. Would the hon. Gentleman be comfortable if his constituents with cancer or those at the end of their lives had to contend with a totally privatised service? That is what we might have to contend with, because we might be faced with a 10-year contract to privatise all those services. It has never been done before, and it is highly risky—and the oncologists were not even consulted about it. We are not talking about supplementing; we are talking about private services replacing the NHS.

[Mr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. What my constituents who are in the unfortunate position of suffering from cancer care about is whether they are going to get better. Is the service going to deliver a service that makes them better and gets them over the disease? Frankly, if it does not cost constituents any money, and if the level of care and service is the highest, I think that is what really matters to them.

It is easy to stand here and talk. Politicians talk—they will always talk—but we have to look at what politicians do. This Government, to their credit, have in this Parliament put in an extra £12.7 billion. Let us compare that with how politicians have operated in Wales, where the budget has been cut by 8%. I think it says a lot to our constituents about how the NHS is going to be managed in future and how much we genuinely care about and want to support the NHS system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

That is a good example, and I know how hard my hon. Friend has worked in his constituency to assist in bringing about that improvement.

The polls clearly show that the public have very little confidence in Labour’s proposals to manage the economy. However, I want to make sure I do everything I can to get the public to cast a weather-eye over the Opposition’s plans for the NHS, and to remember which party introduced privatisation into the NHS, and why. I remember calling on an elderly lady who had been waiting almost two years for a cataract operation on both eyes. That was what the previous Government presided over, and in desperation they called in the private sector to reduce those waiting times. They could not bring about change within the NHS because of their target-driven management culture and their command and control-driven philosophy, so they had to bring in the private sector.

What we are seeing now is a tiny increase: the whole of the private sector accounts for less than 7% of total NHS activity, so we are talking about a small element that the Opposition are blowing up out of all proportion.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margot James]

I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

Labour’s record in government, when the producer interest held sway, stands as a salutary lesson which I hope people will remember.

No wonder there are serious divisions within the Opposition about their health policy, as was reported in the press only today. One Labour Front Bencher was anonymously quoted as saying that it would be a “fatal mistake” to increase the health budget without reforming it. I know there are some people with common sense on the Opposition Benches, but it is a shame they are not in control of health policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I remind all Opposition Members of their predictions about employment at the beginning of this Parliament. If any of them wants to remind us of those, they can be my guest.

We recognise the significant and continuing pressure on services in the short term and the need to invest in new ways of providing care for the future.

This Government have put more performance data in the public domain and have put an unprecedented emphasis on transparency. Indeed, some of the statistics Members quote in these debates are in the public domain only because the Government have put such an emphasis on transparency. Transparency is one of the key drivers of safety in our system.

As public health Minister, I welcome the focus on prevention in the “Five Year Forward View”. I think this is common ground across the parties. Prevention has to be a key part of the NHS’s plans. When we keep people healthy and out of hospital, it is a win for them and a win for the NHS. Mention has been made of the national diabetes prevention programme. We will be the first country in the world to implement such a programme at scale to help prevent the onset of the disease and reduce demand on the NHS. Investing in the NHS with a focus on prevention is one of the keys to a sustainable footing for the NHS in the long term.

Thanks to the work of NHS staff and the funding protection provided by the Government, the NHS is treating more patients than ever. Again, that flies in the face of all the dire threats about its peril. There are 9,000 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses. The additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement will enable the NHS to continue to meet the rapidly rising demand in the short term, while making investments in new services and facilities to transform care for patients and ensure that the NHS is sustainable in the long term.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister mentioned an increase in the number of nurses, but there is no increase in the number of district nurses, of whom we have lost thousands. Week in, week out, the Health Committee keeps being told how serious that is for all aspects of care in the community.

[Jane Ellison]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the 589 new nurses in her trust.

The more sensible Opposition Front Benchers have made it clear in interviews that the link between reform and investment is important. I want to pay tribute to the NHS, which is well on track to make up to £20 billion of efficiency savings to be reinvested in front-line care. For example, the NHS is securing savings of £2 billion a year as a result of the drive to tackle waste and improve procurement. Tough decisions were taken at the beginning of this Parliament to protect the NHS budget—against the advice of the Labour party—that have allowed us to strengthen family doctoring and reform out-of-hospital care. We all agree that integrating health and social care is important, and that is exactly why the Government have the £5 billion better care fund. It is an area on which—despite what Opposition Members say—there is significant consensus. They should support that fund instead of, as I recall, inviting us to put it on pause.

We have heard about how Labour plans to raise more money for the NHS, but in 2015-16 it would raise nothing. The Government are already consulting on a tobacco levy. The tax on family homes, by the Opposition’s own admission, would not start until 2016-17 and has already been spent three times—paying down the deficit, funding the NHS, getting rid of the 10p rate. As a London MP, I have to say that the chance of the homes tax surviving Labour’s London mayoral candidate race is minimal, given the ire raining down on it from Labour MPs in London. On top of that, Labour plans to spend an extra £5 billion, including more than £2 billion on committing equal resources to physical and mental health and more than £1 billion on GP access—it just does not stack up.

We came to government with a long-term economic plan to reduce the deficit and build a stronger economy, with a commitment to protect and safeguard the NHS. We have kept that important promise on the NHS and we kept our promise on the success of our economic plan. We recognise that the NHS still faces significant challenges, both short and long term, as the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) laid out—rising demand, an ageing population and growing expectations—but it is only through sticking to our long-term economic plan that we are able to put the investment in. We are making a down-payment of £2 billion on the NHS’s five-year forward view and we fully support the long-term vision for the NHS, by the NHS—by the most senior and experienced clinicians in our country. The Government have committed to put more resources in now and in the future to give all our constituents a better service, free at the point of use and fit for the future.

Question put.

National Health Service

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend describes the problems well. I know the hospital because I have been there with him. He is right that older people are becoming trapped in hospital. The support is not there for them in their own homes, and nursing home places are not available. I will come back to that theme in a moment.

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

On exactly that point, the Health Committee looked at the A and E crisis last week and was told by the president of the College of Emergency Medicine that delayed discharges were due to underinvestment in the community, by which he meant social care, GPs and district nurses. Indeed, one third of delayed discharges were down to social care. One third of frail elderly people, or vulnerable people, cannot go home because of the issues with social care, which has been cut by £3.53 billion under this Government.

[Andy Burnham]

We have record numbers of delayed discharges in the NHS right now. The number may even go past the 1 million mark—I am talking about days lost in the past year. That reorganisation that I mentioned a moment ago cost at least £3 billion, probably more. The budget was flat so where did that money come from? As my hon. Friend rightly says, it came from cuts to the general practice budget, cuts to the community services budget, cuts to the mental health budget and cuts to the social care budget. That is why the community has been stripped bare and people are trapped in hospital. This is a mess of the Government’s making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

The NHS is under pressure, so the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in her constituency has 34 more doctors and 74 more nurses, and that we are currently doing about 2,000 more operations every year for her constituents. Yes, there is pressure, but this Government are investing on the back of a strong economy so that we can put more money into the NHS and give her constituents a better service.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

Privatisation is one of the most pernicious fears that Labour is seeking to stoke up—not least because, as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh allowed the decision to go through that Hinchingbrooke hospital should be run by the private sector. He has been running away from that decision faster than anything that anyone has seen before, because he is still trying to curry favour with the unions.

The companies on the shortlist for Hinchingbrooke hospital were Circle, Serco and Ramsay Health Care. He could have stopped that as Secretary of State, but he did not. He knows—[Interruption.] Those were the three bidders—the private sector-led bids. He could have stopped that process when he was Secretary of State, but he chose not to. That makes my point very well.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) asked what had changed. Under Labour, we did not have tendering for £1.2 billion of cancer and palliative care services, as we are seeing now in Staffordshire and Stoke, where the majority of those tendering are private companies. We did not have that.

[Mr Hunt]

What the last Government did, that was right, was to say that—[Interruption.] I am just saying what the last Government did right. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) might want to hear this, because I do not usually compliment the last Government.

To bring waiting times down to 18 weeks, the last Government said that they would support the NHS by allowing the private sector to do some operations. We have continued that policy, not changed it. The result, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know, is that 6,000 more operations are happening every year in her constituency under this Government than in 2010.

For this Government, it is about the patients. That is why we increased the NHS budget; why we hired 9,000 more doctors and 6,000 more hospital nurses; why we are doing nearly 1 million more operations a year than four years ago, with fewer long waits than ever; why we have increased cancer referrals by half, saving an estimated 1,000 lives every single month; and why we have learned the lessons of Mid Staffs by putting in place safe staffing, having independent inspections and turning around six failing hospitals.

Patients say—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh should listen to what patients say, because he did not do that when he was Secretary of State. Patients say that their care is safer and more compassionate than ever, with the independent Commonwealth Fund saying that under this Government, the NHS has become the best health care system in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will campaign to make sure that the Northern Ireland Executive put the extra money they have received as part of the Chancellor’s autumn statement into precisely that—good GP services for the people of Northern Ireland.

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

It is increasingly recognised that the causes of the A and E crisis include the closure of walk-in centres, such as the one in Little Hulton in my constituency and this Government’s savage cuts to council budgets, leading in Salford to 1,000 fewer people getting care packages funded this year. When will the Health Secretary start to take responsibility for his own Government’s policies and do something to ensure investment in social care to ease that pressure on A and E? The better care fund is not the answer.

A and E (Major Incidents)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks with a great deal of wisdom as someone who has occupied this post and he is absolutely right. All Health Secretaries face pressures of the kind we are going through now and face difficult winters. Winter is always a difficult time for the NHS and, as the Prime Minister said, we need a short-term plan to help—that is what our plan of creating about 5,000 extra front-line clinicians this winter alone is doing—but we must also consider the long-term plan. That involves finding a better way of looking after vulnerable older people other than through A and E departments—that means better care in the community, better support from GPs and better community services—and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

Bolton Royal hospital is one of the hospitals declaring a major incident. The context is as follows. The Little Hulton walk-in centre was closed, when it saw 2,000 patients a month. Salford city council had £100 million cut out of its budget, so 1,000 people this year are losing care packages. I have an elderly constituent who was admitted to Bolton Royal following poor care. It is obvious that those things are causing the problem. When will the Secretary of State take responsibility?

[Mr Hunt]

We take responsibility and I take responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS. Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are actually doing, because there have been some serious bed capacity issues in Bolton. Bolton has had £3 million this winter to help deal with those pressures, which has included £340,000 to spend on additional beds in the hospital supporting the A and E department and more than £100,000 to pay for additional staff in A and E. Overall, compared with in 2010, there are 114 extra doctors and 571 extra nurses. She should welcome that, rather than trying to make a political issue of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I am a strong supporter of personal budgets. People who have complex medical needs want, above all, to have personal control over their own health care, and they will be extremely worried that the Labour party has now said that it wishes to abolish personal budgets.

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

With regard to reducing patient choice, can the Secretary of State explain the sudden move to remove dialysis from being regarded as a specialised commissioning service, which is of great concern to a constituent of mine who is a renal patient and to the renal community? Will the Secretary of State now agree to a proper consultation—not over the Christmas holidays—and will he think again about that risky move?

[Mr Hunt]

We hope to have a public consultation on the matter. We are not seeking to restrict access to dialysis—far from it. We want to make it easier for people to access those vital services, and we have been putting more money into the NHS budget because we recognise just how important they are.

National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on his excellent opening speech—I think it was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House—and on introducing his Bill so that we can review and reform some of the more pernicious effects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. One of the worst was to force market tendering of services, meaning that millions of pounds are wasted on the process, money that should be spent on improving front-line patient care.

As a member of the Health Committee, I am very concerned about the increasing role that private companies are paying in providing NHS services. We recently looked at what is happening in Stoke and Staffordshire. There have been a few references to that in this debate and I will talk some more about it, but we looked at it under the label of the integrated care pioneers pilot. I want to talk more about that development as an example of just what can happen under this Government’s market framework—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are a lot of conversations and I am struggling to hear the hon. Lady. If we need to have the conversations, can we turn them down a little?

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The clinical commissioning groups involved plan to tender by summer 2015 a £1.2 billion contract to deliver cancer services and end-of-life care for 876,000 people across the area. The witnesses we heard from made it clear that commissioning on a disease-specific basis like this is risky. There are only a few small-scale examples of that being done anywhere, and nothing on the scale of this project. Despite the risk, we heard some worrying things about local people or local MPs not being listened to and about a lack of consultation with or involvement of hospital-based clinicians. The Minister has just referred a number of times to letting doctors get on with running the NHS, but the CCGs involved in driving this pilot are not even involving or listening to local clinicians. I and other colleagues on the Committee found that bodies such as Healthwatch England and Macmillan Cancer Support were cheerleaders for—and in Macmillan’s case, a funder of—development work on a project that could end up privatising cancer and end-of-life care for almost a million people. I for one found that disturbing. I felt, and I know that some of my colleagues did too, that there was a conflict of interest. Healthwatch England was meant to be the consumer champion of health and care.

By contrast with what Government Members have said, there was also a fair amount of concern among Committee members about the role of Macmillan Cancer Support in funding the development work when many believe that the money they give to Macmillan goes directly to cancer care. Indeed, the example I saw on the Macmillan website yesterday was that a donation would pay for a Macmillan nurse for a period to help people living with cancer and their families receive essential medical, practical and emotional support. It does not appear to be a selling point for that charity that funds would be used on a project to privatise end-of-life and cancer care in Staffordshire and Stoke.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

As I have already said, I have major concerns about the form of the contract. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wrote, and I say this in defence of Macmillan:

“This is the context for our new cancer contract and we should not pass knee-jerk judgments upon new ideas which aim for better outcomes and efficiency.”

That is what Macmillan is after.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but the point is that Macmillan Cancer Support is using money fundraised by the public in ways that I do not think the public would approve of. That was the key thing we explored. It is not at all clear, if we look at the Macmillan website, how it is using approaching £1 million of the public’s money, donated on that basis.

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend mentions conflicts of interest. Is she aware that one of the companies bidding for the privatisation of cancer services is UnitedHealth Group, which was advised by the chief executive of NHS England?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. Now that the shortlist for bidding has been announced for end-of-life care, we find that five of the shortlisted bidders are private companies, with only two NHS trusts on the list. For cancer care, there are three private companies and two NHS trusts. Given the seemingly headlong drive for change we found in those commissioning this large and risky contract, a great number of questions were left unanswered. For instance, despite the key role that GPs play in end-of-life care for patients choosing to die at home, the prime provider of end-of-life care will not have control over the actions of the GPs involved in that care unless a specific contract is drawn up and GPs are paid for extra tasks.

The contracts for cancer and end-of-life care are to be placed in early summer 2015, and I invite anybody with an interest in this to review the evidence and, in particular, the unanswered questions in the session the Health Committee held on 14 October. I have yet to find assurances in the evidence I have heard that the profit motive of private providers can be squared with the objective of improving cancer care and end-of-life care for patients.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Cancer care for north Wales is provided by bodies in the north-west of England. MPs on the Government Benches are saying that I, as a Welsh MP, should not have a vote on this matter. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Should I be concerned about standards of care and the privatisation of the English health service? My constituents will suffer if it is hollowed out and privatised by the Government.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend absolutely should be concerned and I know that he is.

One of the elements of cancer and end-of-life care given to us as an example of where improvement is needed in Staffordshire and Stoke was patient transport. However, we know in the north-west that going to new private providers does not tend to help. We have already had a negative experience since patient transport was contracted out to the bus company Arriva.

A number of my constituents have had problems with Arriva’s patient transport. One contacted me following a wait of more than three hours for ambulance transport to be arranged for her husband. He has terminal cancer and needed to be transported back to Salford Royal after oncology treatment at the Christie hospital. That was the second time in three weeks that this terminally ill patient had to wait two or three hours for transport. Staff at the Christie hospital told my constituent that such long waits were common, despite the fact that many oncology patients are very sick.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly because the Minister did not in the course of his very long speech. Of course, that might have been because the main emergency hospital in my constituency, Charing Cross, is being demolished, losing all but 24 of its 360 beds, losing the best stroke unit in the country and losing its A and E, which, according to board papers, is moving from the site. There will be no emergency consultancy services at all. Is not what is happening on the ground very different from the jargon-filled rubbish we heard from the Minister today?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely, and I am saying what is happening on the ground to a terminally ill cancer patient.

In her letter to Arriva, my constituent told the company:

“Your company should not have this contract if it displays such a lack of concern for very ill patients causing distress to both them and their relatives”.

Not only was the delay unacceptable to a terminally ill patient, but the reply to my constituent’s complaint was one of the worst I have ever seen, as we are talking about gobbledegook. For instance, the explanation for the long wait included the following sentence:

“When an outpatient booking is made, the expected outbound blocking is automatically populated, using the throughput assumption.”

The jargon that starts at the top permeates down even to the complaint handling. It took a lot more letters to get an apology for such appalling service and such a poor reply.

Another constituent has told me of unsuitable transport and untrained staff—we have heard about this happening across the country—sent to the home of a patient who needed to use a wheelchair. That meant that the patient missed their appointment and an important investigation of their health was delayed by a number of weeks. I trust that the commissioners driving the privatisation of cancer services in Staffordshire and Stoke are aware of just how wrong transport services can go with a private transport provider.

This Government’s measures have put competition and privatisation above the needs of NHS patients. The Health and Social Care Act has put pressure on regulators to make clinical commissioning groups and NHS trusts adopt tendering processes that are not in the best interest of patients. That means wasted money, resources and time. This Bill would remove these damaging reforms, and patient care would be prioritised instead of unnecessary competition. The Bill would not prevent competition within the NHS, but it would prevent competition at the expense of patient care.

Our national health service is different from other sectors and needs a different approach. Integration to improve patient care needs collaboration rather than competition. It is a great pleasure to be in the Chamber today to speak and vote in support of the Bill.

Physical Inactivity (Public Health)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing such an important debate. We need to promote physical activity to people across the UK. The issue is important to me as a constituency MP in an area that has very low levels of physical activity. I am co-chair of the all-party group on women’s sport and fitness, and I encourage hon. Members to support that group. Last year, I was co-chair of the all-party commission on physical activity.

As an MP in the north-west of England, I am concerned that ours is one of two regions in the north with the highest levels of inactivity in the UK. In our region, 32% of the population is classified as inactive, which represents an inactivity level 5% higher than in the south-east. Reports demonstrate that deprived areas have higher levels of inactivity than the least deprived areas; the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has referred to some of the reasons for that. The sheer cost of undertaking physical activity and classes sometimes gets in the way. My constituency is in the top 40 local authorities with the highest inactivity rates, and 33% of people are inactive. We need action locally to tackle the problems.

There are stark differences in inactivity rates not only between regions, but between men and women. There is a worrying gap between the rates of men and women who undertake exercise. The most recent figures from Women in Sport, which was formerly the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation, show that only slightly more than 30% of women in England aged 16-plus take part in sport or fitness once a week, compared with more than 40% of men.

In Salford, the gap is even greater, with only 25% of women taking part in weekly exercise. Figures from Sport England demonstrate that more men take part in activity than women in every age group up to age 65. That is serious, because being physically inactive shortens a person’s life span by up to five years and is responsible for 17% of premature deaths in the UK. Indeed, if everyone in England were sufficiently active, an estimated 37,000 lives would be saved every year. We must take that seriously.

I find it interesting that inactivity is as dangerous to health as smoking. Because women are less active than men, women are subject to an increased risk of ill health and premature death. The reasons for the gender gap in inactivity rates are well established. Women and young girls either face, or feel that they face, many barriers when it comes to sports participation. Barriers exist at both grass-roots sport level and elite levels. In the all-party group on women’s sport, we work to identify those barriers and the actions needed to remove them.

The all-party group pressed the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to hold an inquiry into women in sport, which it did. The Committee’s report, which was released in July this year, contained some interesting recommendations and confirmed many of the reasons for the gender gap in activity. It is not that inactive women do not want to play sport or to be active; research from Women in Sport showed that 12 million women, more than half of whom are inactive, want to play more sport. Many of the sports that are most popular with women, such as running and swimming, are done informally—that is an interesting clue—so they are outside the formal funding structures for sport.

Women make up 62% of participants in swimming, 42% of participants in tennis and 41% of participants in athletics, particularly running. I will come on to talk about running informally, because it is an attractive sport to women who have family responsibilities or other commitments that prevent them from taking part in team sports. There is also a clue in the figures for team sports. Only 7% of participants in football, 8% of participants in rugby union and 9% of participants in cricket are women. We can see a real trend there; women are tending to do informal sports such as running and swimming.

Many girls are put off exercise and sport at a young age, and too many girls end up thinking that sport is simply not for them. Sports such as football can seem entirely male, judging from the media coverage that they receive. Women’s sport accounts for only 0.5% of all commercial investment and only 7% of the media coverage of sport, which makes it even more difficult to encourage girls and women to participate.

In terms of financial reward, it is surprising that male footballers are paid millions of pounds every year, but women’s teams are nearly always amateur or semi-professional. Members of our England women’s football team are on contracts under which they are paid £20,000 a year—not £20,000 a day or a week, but £20,000 a year—and the England women’s rugby squad were not put on paid contracts at all until after they had won the rugby world cup. Every time I mention that, I get comments on Twitter stating that that is because of a lack of interest in women playing sport. I understand that 55,000 tickets have been sold for the England-Germany women’s football match at Wembley this Sunday, so perhaps that tide is turning.

Women’s and girls’ negative perceptions of sport often stem from negative experiences of physical education and sport at school. That point is supported by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report. A survey carried out by Women in Sport found that 51% of girls felt deterred from physical activity by their experiences of school sport and PE. Many girls describe their experience negatively, citing a lack of choice, an overly competitive environment, a lack of confidence in their own ability and concerns about body image. It is essential that we change young girls’ perceptions of sport if we want them to be active for life. We must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, create exercise classes and sporting activities that actually interest girls.

I look forward to the campaign being launched by Sport England, which aims to change our perception of girls and women doing sport. The campaign is called “This Girl Can”, and it will aim to see more women and girls exercising regularly or playing sport with less fear of judgment, more confidence and more enjoyment.

I will mention two very worthwhile initiatives of the sort that we see springing up now. “Fatty Must Run” is a social media advice and support initiative and Twitter account run by Julie Creffield, and it helps people who are overweight and starting to take exercise. Another great initiative is the “Couch to 5K” running group in Blackburn, where volunteers support free group running sessions to encourage inactive people to run regularly. As part of our thinking about how to increase activity levels, we must look at similar wonderful, often voluntary, initiatives and find ways to support them.

It is time to focus on the scale of the problems we face with inactivity and health. I have mentioned that we could save 37,000 lives a year if everyone in the UK were sufficiently active. Women in the UK have the 10th highest rate in the world of cancers linked to physical inactivity. In 2012, there were nearly 79,000 deaths across the country from bowel, breast and womb cancers, of which an estimated 12,000 could have been prevented if women were more physically active. In Salford, the CAN-Move project aims to ensure that physical activity is part of the pathway for patients with breast, bowel or prostate cancers, and it offers those patients a 12-week physical activity programme. Such projects should be available more widely, but the most important thing is to focus on encouraging people to be physically active earlier, not simply when they already have a cancer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for securing this debate on such an important topic. It is one of my personal passions, particularly while I have been in this job. It is evident from the contributions of so many colleagues, who made so many thoughtful points, that many share my passion for this area. I do not pretend to think that I can respond to every specific point that was raised, because it has been a varied and wide-ranging debate, which demonstrates Parliament’s appetite to get stuck into this topic. I will return to the powerful role that MPs have in increasing levels of physical activity if I have time towards the end of my remarks.

Society has changed a great deal, and that sits behind everything we have been debating this morning—why we have become more sedentary—and other Members have laid that out. I will not spend too much of my speech going over the evidence base, because it has been well covered by the hon. Gentleman and other Members, but the evidence base is well established for the problems that the level of physical inactivity in our nation is causing. I was pleased to hear Members talk about not only physical conditions, but mental health. I think dementia was also mentioned. There is an important evidence base for the fact that becoming more physically active can benefit people in a great many ways. One of my personal passions is how physical activity can impact on social isolation and exclusion; I will try and touch on that later. I will not reiterate what other Members have said on the statistics on how inactive we have become as a nation, because they are all on the record; I would prefer to use my time—I am conscious of leaving a little bit of time for the hon. Gentleman to wind up—by telling the House what the Government are doing.

I will say a few words about obesity. It is a slightly complex area, as I was saying to the hon. Gentleman just before we came into the Chamber. We are clear that all the expert evidence suggests that while physical activity brings the important health benefits that we have been discussing—such things as stronger muscles and bones and improved cardiovascular health and metabolic health, as well as some of the psychological well-being aspects—tackling obesity is fundamentally about eating and drinking less. That is what will lead to significant weight loss. That is not to belittle the role of physical activity, but to emphasise its importance. Physical activity cannot just be seen through the narrow prism of its role in weight loss, because it is bigger and more important than that and goes to the heart of so many well-being and other social issues. I am keen that it is not cast only in the light of weight loss. We need to understand its role in tackling obesity, not least in encouraging active lifestyles in children from the very start and not building up problems for future generations, but it is a little more complex than that.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister acknowledge that it is important for overweight people and large people to take exercise, because they will be healthier, whatever size they are, if they do that? There is a danger in focusing just on weight loss, instead of exercise. If people take exercise, it is likely to lead to a healthier lifestyle and a desire to lose weight.

[Jane Ellison]

Absolutely. I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. It is exactly why we should not just link obesity and physical activity together. It is better for everyone to move. I will come on to some of the conditions that are helped by that, but she is right that whatever someone’s age, weight or state of health, moving more is always a better option.

Members have touched on this, but it was an important moment when we saw prevention put right at the heart of the NHS with the publication of the “NHS Five Year Forward View”. Public Health England collaborated closely with the NHS on the prevention chapter of that forward view, which states:

“The future health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health.”

It cannot be said more profoundly than that that this issue is important. The attention given to that aspect of the forward view was heartening to me as the public health Minister, because I had not heard the prevention agenda put quite so much at the heart of the health debate in our country and related to the sustainability of our great public services to that extent.

Members have talked about shifting the narrative. With the best will in the world, Governments can only do so much. We have to shift the population’s thinking from where we are now to where we need to be. A couple of Members touched on the role of some of the major charities. I have been having conversations with some of the major health charities about how they can harness the reach and reputation they enjoy among our population. For example, Macmillan Cancer Support is famous for its wonderful cancer care, but it is a bit less famous for the excellent work it does with the Ramblers on the evidence base on walking as a key element of physical activity. I have been talking to Macmillan and others, including some of the big cancer charities, about what more they can do to get people to understand more widely the role of physical activity in preventing diseases, because those charities have enormous reach into the population.

I pay tribute to Breakthrough Breast Cancer on its message, “Raise your pulse, reduce your risk”, which is a campaign that tells women that 30 minutes of daily physical activity can reduce the risk of breast cancer by at least 20%. Arthritis Research UK launched a piece around understanding arthritis, which addresses exactly the point that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made in her intervention. It is tackling the misguided belief that someone should rest if they have joint pain and is trying to put some of its weight, resource and reputation behind simple messages on standing, walking and being more active, even for people with some of those physical challenges.

We have dwelled a lot on physical inactivity among the young, and I will come on to some of the things that the Government are doing to help that, but the most inactive generation is the oldest generation. Only one in 10 men and one in 20 women over 75 are active enough to stay healthy. I am lucky enough to have both my parents still with me—one is 80 and the other is just under 80—and very much active and healthy. My father is still cycling 50 miles a week at 78. I look at their lifestyles and I see how much can be gained from staying active as people grow old. It helps them to remain independent for longer and tackles some of the thorny issues of social isolation. Active older people are unlikely to be lonely. We must be passionate about the activity agenda for older people, as well as the sensible focus on getting the young into good habits.

On the role of Government, experience from across the globe shows that getting everybody active every day will work only if everyone is involved, including all levels of government, so I want to discuss what we have been doing recently, because the level of activity is good. At a national level and following up on the Olympic legacy—I chair a cross-ministerial group on the physical aspect of the legacy—we started “Moving More, Living More” as a cross-Government policy to get more people active. It stresses that physical activity is everyone’s business. If it just sits in a health silo, we will fail again. I have had conversations with Lord Coe, who recognises that we have been around this circuit before. Physical activity cannot just be a health measure; it must be embedded across all levels of Government and local government.

Following on from that, we have taken a much more granular approach and have provided a proper toolkit. Just last month, Public Health England published the “Everybody Active, Every Day” framework. It was going to be published early next year, but I urged it to bring that forward to this autumn, so that it was available to local authorities when planning their 2015-16 spend. We have provided £8.2 billion for public health over three years, and it is important that we also provide the best evidence base for how to spend that money for local populations.

I want to describe how the scheme was produced, because it has been a wide-ranging collaborative effort. I hope that MPs all received their toolkit. It might still be lurking in the inbox—we all receive a lot of e-mails—but please look for it, because it was designed to give MPs a role in promoting the agenda. The campaign was co-produced with more than 1,000 cross-sector organisations and individuals at national and local level. It was begun at a workshop in January this year. Since then, we have had nine expert round tables attended by more than 200 experts. Five regional forums have been attended by some 750 individuals, including people from local authorities. The “Moving More, Living More” policy and the recommendations of the all-party commission on physical activity—I see one of its members here—fed into the process. We held sector-specific presentations and workshops, bilateral meetings with Government and nine expert rapid topic overviews.

Good and promising practice has been collated, and we have also commissioned work on what constitutes such practice, with more than 960 submissions for assessment. I have also commissioned a review of return on investment data, which is critical for local government. A public consultation was held on the draft documents, with 183 submissions raising 550 specific issues. The output from the exercise, which was launched at the Oval last month, includes a toolkit, as mentioned, for elected representatives—I worked with Public Health England on the MP toolkit and we are looking at one for locally elected members as well—and free British Medical Journal-sponsored e-learning modules. Regarding the review of promising practice in communities, we have commissioned the Centre for Sport and Exercise Science and ukactive’s research institute to consider and rate submissions. We have also done some detailed topic overviews, in particular looking at some in-depth guidance for addressing complex issues around deprivation and health inequalities, which will respond to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.

I have attended a high-level round table with local government leaders, who I must say are a great deal more optimistic than the shadow Minister about their ability to deliver on this agenda. The meeting was cross-party and extremely positive, and I have seen many of the things that they have been doing. This is a collaborative effort right across local and national Government to take us to the next level in terms of an evidence-based approach to physical activity. Like the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), who spoke about public health sitting well with local government, I absolutely think that it has landed in the right place. I have seen some fantastic examples of real leadership, but we need to give local government the tools to do the job. We do not want people endlessly reiterating the evidence base and endlessly trying to work out what works and carrying out their own evaluations when that can be done at a national level through the resources of Public Health England.

The four areas within “Everybody Active, Every Day” are “Active society”, “Moving professionals”, which is about ensuring that our professionals are geared up to make every contact count, “Active environments”, and “Moving at scale”, which is about the big interventions—as opposed to small, excellent micro-interventions—that will really make a difference to the population. The framework contains a lot more detail, and I urge Members to have a look at it, because it is what we are now engaging with local government leaders on. I was asked about the data that local authorities have at their disposal and the Active People survey provides them with areas to target.

In addition to all that, my Department has given £11.4 million to the Change4Life sports club programme, through which 13,500 clubs have been established to help our children to be more active. Those clubs have deliberately been set up in areas of high childhood obesity and significant deprivation. We are also investing £180 million over three years into the primary PE and sport premium to improve health outcomes for primary-age children. We have provided £30.5 million to fund the School games organisers, who are responsible for delivering the games and co-ordinating Change4Life sports clubs. Much work is ongoing with the Department for Transport around cycling cities, and we have augmented its funding by putting money into five walking cities.

Sport England recently announced that it is also making more money available to help to get people more active. I echo everything that has been said today about women’s participation and removing barriers to entry. Some extremely good points were made. I welcome the fact that Sport England has recognised that and is looking to fund things that many of us would not traditionally recognise as sport and things beyond team sport. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I remember the Lycra shame of the 1980s and the “feel the burn” movement. We do not want people to go to something once and then give it up. We must remove the barriers to entry. I heard about wonderful local government initiatives, such as T-shirt swimming days for people who do not want to swim in just a swimsuit, and other clever things.

However, we need to get the message out there, which much of the debate concentrated on. I must be honest that I do not believe the chief medical officer’s guidelines are well understood. They are difficult for health professionals to understand and the same is certainly true for the public. I have commissioned a piece of work from Public Health England to develop a mantra for physical activity similar to “five-a-day”, which, if not universally observed, is widely known and understood.

I hope that I have provided a sense of how we are trying to follow up on the Olympic and Paralympic legacies. Lord Coe has been clear that that will be judged over decades not years, because although the shadow Minister suggested that it has developed over the past five years, the problem has developed over decades, but we are taking action. MPs have a valuable role to play. It is a huge job, but we are making great strides towards getting everybody active every day. I thank Members for their participation in the debate.