Induced Abortion

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on raising the issue again, and I encourage her to continue doing so.

My motivation for speaking—although I am basically against abortion in principle—is that I want to touch on one or two aspects of the issue, one of which is late abortions. I remember doing a fundraising project for a special care baby unit in 1992 in Derbyshire. Even as long ago as that, babies were starting to survive after 24 weeks’ gestation. I saw those babies, their fight for life, and the care and attention that they were given. The entire unit was there to help preserve life, and it struck me as very wrong, especially as time has gone on and as medical science has advanced, that we should be aborting babies who are capable of life.

We have heard it said today that babies cannot survive at 20 or 21 weeks. I shall not argue with that position, but it is fairly well established that they can survive from anything above 22 weeks, and certainly at 23 or 24 weeks. It is not fit for a civilised society to take, live from the womb, babies who are capable of life, leave them to struggle for life, and let them die. In any other circumstances, allowing a baby to die like that, through omission, would certainly be manslaughter, at least. That cannot be right. I can understand why some people might be in favour of abortion up to 12 weeks or so, but I simply cannot understand how anybody in this House would want this practice to continue.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What does the hon. Gentleman think the balance should be between scientific and anecdotal evidence in the development of policy? He suggests that we should use anecdotal rather than scientific evidence to produce policy.

[Mr Robertson]

I find that intervention rather confusing, because if the babies are surviving, surely that is proof of the science. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I cannot understand the point of the intervention.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) asked why we were having the debate now, when we considered the issue four years ago. I have to say that Parliament does not always get things right. On very many issues, public opinion and the evidence are way ahead of where Parliament is. Examples include welfare reform, immigration and the European Union. Parliament has not caught up with what everyone else in the country is saying on those issues. This is one such issue that certainly needs to be revisited. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire is right: we should not shy away from this subject or any other, because if we—

NHS (Rationing of Care)

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful. I take that as a compliment, because I would hate to reduce the hon. Gentleman to tears.

As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members well know, cost-based rationing of the sort that she has described is not permitted and not condoned.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

No, I will not; I am going to make some progress. This is not the hon. Lady’s debate and I have only just started.

If the hon. Member for North Tyneside or any other member of her party or of the public brought forth genuine evidence of cost-based rationing—blanket bans on treatment—this Government would act decisively to stamp it out, but the fact is that so far we have been brought no such convincing evidence of that.

The core principle underpinning the NHS is that it is a comprehensive health service, available to all, free at the point of use and based on need and not ability to pay. That principle is enshrined in the NHS constitution and reaffirmed in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

EU Working Time Directive (NHS)

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Mr Howarth. Occasionally it is difficult to remember that we are not having a conversation.

The point about the opt-out is that, under the working time directive, individuals can opt out of the maximum 48 hours per week if they choose to do so—they cannot be compelled to do so.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we opt out of, for example, co-ordination on public health strategy or communicable diseases? Co-ordinating at an international level on bird flu and other pandemics is hugely important.

[Andrea Leadsom]

All I am saying is that, under the Lisbon treaty, member states that do not like certain legislation have the opportunity to club together and to propose that the European Commission look at it for possible deletion or significant amendment. That happened with the working time directive at two points in the past, in 2004 and 2010, but the attempts to amend it came to naught. The great tragedy is that with 27 member states there is simply a Chinese whispers effect. Someone says, “This is ridiculous, it is harming our national health service”; everyone agrees, “Yes, it’s ridiculous”, and therefore an amendment is proposed; but by the time it has gone around 27 member states, it is completely lost and gets nowhere. That is the fundamental problem with negotiating amendments.

My original point was about the importance of the time line of the working time directive. In 1990, the European Commission tabled the proposal for the working time directive as a health and safety measure. In November 1993 the UK was outvoted 11 to one at the European Council negotiations. The European Commission stated that the working time directive was

“a practical contribution towards creating the social dimension of the internal market”—

it was all about health and safety for employees, and employees in the real economy overworking; it was not intended to have the profound impact it has had on the national health service. David Hunt, who was Employment Secretary under the then Conservative Government, said that he would fight the legislation and not accept it. He tried hard, by going to the European Court of Justice to challenge the legal basis of the directive as health and safety legislation, but the UK was outvoted.

In 1996 the ECJ ruled against the UK, and Labour implemented the working time directive in 1998. The directive requires a maximum working week of 48 hours, a rest period of 11 consecutive hours a day, a rest break when the day is longer than six hours and a minimum of one rest day per week, as well as the statutory right to four weeks’ holiday. Such a list of requirements highlights the directive’s complete inflexibility; it clearly cannot be applied to absolutely every type of worker in our economy. In the end, the European Union had to admit that there were certain exceptions, which is why in some countries trainee doctors are treated as autonomous—in other words, self-employed. That is used as a means to get round the rules, because it is never going to be possible to enforce that kind of rigidity on people who are self-employed. There are all sorts of unintended consequences from a prescriptive and damaging set of rules.

In his response, will the Minister confirm whether the NHS has caused some of those problems—not necessarily deliberately—by offering contracts to doctors and junior doctors that are subject to a maximum of 48 hours? We should remember that the NHS is not allowed to invite new employees to opt out of the 48-hour working week at the same time as they sign their contract, because of fears of coercion. Does the Minister have a view about whether the NHS has created part of the problem by telling junior doctors and other health workers in their contracts that they will be paid for a 48-hour week, and then inviting them to opt out at a later date? There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that many doctors are working hours that are unpaid because their contract allows them to be paid for only 48 hours a week. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West pointed out, representatives of doctors and NHS staff do not agree among themselves about whether they support the European working time directive. Certainly, the Royal College of Physicians, NHS Employers and the Royal College of Surgeons are concerned not only that the working time directive causes a problem for doctors and patients, but that it does not do what it sets out to do, which is to deal with the exhaustion of doctors themselves. The Royal College of Surgeons says:

“We know from our members that working in a full shift pattern is more tiring when compared to working using an ‘on-call’ system, and creates a working environment that is impairing to patient safety.”

The British Medical Association believes that the European working time directive is entirely right in all of its manifestations. Patient and doctor representatives need to resolve the question of where they stand, as representatives of health service workers, on the implications of the working time directive.

Turning to the options for change, the Fresh Start project has done a great deal of work on this. Certainly, there are things Britain could do in isolation to try to improve the situation, and we have heard about some of them today. Some doctors in other European Union countries have two contracts, which has been used as a way of getting round the working time directive. We have heard about all sorts of workarounds that Britain does not tend to use, and the Government might want to consider what other countries have done. Certainly, MEPs in Europe have told me that some doctors will take on two 48-hour contracts, which seems to be going back to dangerous practice. Nevertheless, if an impossible situation is created, we end up with people just trying to defeat the problems.

A far more likely scenario is that we negotiate for change with other members that are unhappy with the consequences of the working time directive. We should get together with the 16 other member states that are determined to see change and that have negotiated an opt-out, so that we can get the directive changed specifically in relation to the NHS and make our economy more flexible.

What we are proposing is a concrete option for change. At the time of the European members’ attempt to get their recent fiscal consolidation agreement into the main treaties, there will be an opportunity for Britain to go to the EU Council with its own proposal for change. This is a clear opportunity, which has arisen from the need for fiscal consolidation in other EU countries, for Britain to prepare a list of changes to various elements of the treaties that it would like to see, and to go all out to negotiate those changes when the time comes, in three or four years. In line with the proposal put forward at the all-party parliamentary group for European reform, I recommend a triple lock whereby Britain arranges to opt out.

[Debbie Abrahams]

This is an interesting and useful debate. Is the hon. Lady aware of the recent systematic review—the highest level of evidence we have—that was inconclusive on the impact of the working time directive? I think there has been only one UK study undertaken since 2009, and one recommendation in the systematic review is that there should be more research. Is that not one of the outcomes we should be pressing for here, so that we have a full, evidence-based understanding that will enable us to ensure that policy is adhered to correctly?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Lady again, but a mistake that many Opposition Members fall into is to think that only the European Union can legislate to protect the British NHS. Of course, that is simply not the case. Britain is perfectly able to legislate for its own NHS needs without the support of the European Union.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would like to finish now. I have given way to the hon. Lady twice.

The first lock would be for the UK to argue that it should opt out completely from the social policy section of the EU treaties. The second lock should be for the UK to have the ability to opt out of any future EU proposal that it believed would impact intolerably on its social and employment law. The third lock would be for Britain to negotiate that the ECJ should not be allowed to have jurisdiction over ruling whether the UK was right to opt out of that legislation. That is the only way, once and for all, to enable Britain again to have control over its own working time hours—not only for the NHS, but for the future of the whole of our British economy.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) who, as always, speaks with such authority on the relationship between this country and Europe. I was particularly interested to hear the relevant experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Most hon. Members have said that we do not want to go back to 100 hour weeks; her rather shocking and frightening examples remind us all why that is so. What we want is flexibility—F for flexibility, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) so helpfully put it—so that we can try to get a better outcome for everybody.

So much has already been said and covered, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), who did so well to secure the debate. As she made her remarks, I was concerned that she was going to cover absolutely everything. She pretty much did, so I will just concentrate on one area—surgery—where the effect of the working time directive has been particularly damaging.

Although, as some hon. Members have pointed out, the British Medical Association has said that all training can fit into 48 hours, surgeons I have spoken to are concerned. The body that represents trainee surgeons, the Association of Surgeons in Training, has stressed that surgery is very different from all other aspects of the medical profession. It has clearly taken on the BMA in trying to make that point. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, surgery is a craft specialty like chefs, for example—a lot can be learnt from books, but in the end there is nothing like hands on practical experience. Operative and procedural skills define the surgical craft and they are finite in number, with the majority to be gained during working hours. By limiting those hours, we are working against their training and therefore their competency as future consultant surgeons. As the ASIT survey confirmed, the majority of surgical trainees would welcome the opportunity to work in excess of the hours permitted—we are not doing them any favours by restricting their hours.

The Royal College of Surgeons estimates that 400,000 hours of surgical time are lost every month. ASIT believes that the restrictions imposed by the directive will be detrimental to the quality of training for junior surgeons and, therefore, to the quality of surgical service and provision in the future. Ultimately, as said by many of my colleagues today, the restrictions will be harmful to patient care. We also risk deterring junior doctors from specialising in surgery, as they are only too aware of the consequences of the restrictions. The royal college and ASIT both call for flexibility to enable UK surgeons to work up to a maximum of 65 hours per week, including time spent on call.

In addition to the effect of the working time directive on doctors’ training, the legislation is impacting on the continuity and quality of patient care in our hospitals. According to a survey by the Royal College of Surgeons, 80% of consultant surgeons and 66% of surgical trainees said that patient care had deteriorated as a result of the directive. Those consequences are worrying, and we need to focus on them.

[Debbie Abrahams]

In an earlier intervention, I referred to the systematic review. I appreciate that surveys give a certain amount of one-off evidence, but systematic reviews are the strongest form of evidence, and there were no conclusive results regarding an impact on patient outcomes. Whatever action we take, it surely should be based on the strongest evidence and not on evidence of lesser quality.

[Amber Rudd]

I am talking about evidence, and every Member present has been talking about their own evidence—

[Debbie Abrahams]

But not the strongest form of evidence.

[Amber Rudd]

Anecdotal evidence is absolutely relevant. We get such evidence from talking in our hospitals to consultants, patients and surgeons. That is much more relevant sometimes than the box-ticking consequences from a more desk-driven survey.

Our 24-hour health service has had to make dramatic changes to how hospitals are staffed. The effects of the reduction in hours have been further compounded by the Jaeger and SiMAP rulings of the European Court of Justice, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West. Those decree that all time spent in the workplace should be regarded as work, whether at rest or not, which is a dramatic change from previous arrangements. As a result, hospitals have had to scrap all on-call arrangements in favour of full shift rotas, which is creating a multitude of problems. Consultants at the Conquest hospital in Hastings told me that, in order to staff a full shift rota in one department, they now need eight people instead of the six they used to have on the old on-call system. Sometimes there is not even enough work. Indeed, the exposure of each doctor to training opportunities in the day is diluted, and the extra doctors are employed purely to service a working time-compliant rota.

The rota and the system are driving health arrangements, which is surely wrong. It is an inefficient and costly way to manage doctors, and it is damaging to the quality of their training. It is particularly harmful for district general hospitals such as my own, the Conquest, which find that they are no longer able to support certain specialties, such as the neurology department in my example, which has now largely moved to the nearby Eastbourne general hospital. Unfortunately, as we have heard from other Members, the same impact on certain specialties is being experienced in their district hospitals. The doctors at the Conquest do a fantastic job, and I am extremely grateful for the hard work and commitment that they put in; but, from my conversations with the consultants, I know that those doctors are being stretched too thin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is that not the point? This is about ensuring that we have quality data to inform policy development. It may not be working as it should be—I will accept that—but we cannot use incomplete, poor data to propose solutions. We need to ensure that we have quality data to inform that process. What if I made a statement now and that was regarded as evidence? Surely we are not going to base policy on just one person or on poor data.

[Chris Skidmore]

I agree. I am sure that all hon. Members would echo such a call. We should have complete data. The complete data, if we had them, would show that the situation is far worse and that, instead of the £1 billion a year cost, the hidden cost is, according to the data that I have, perhaps £2 billion. We do not know.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, almost like a Cassandra, warned that this would be a problem back in 2010, and started the campaign with no data at all. Two years down the line, we find what she said to be true, in respect of data from individual trusts. We will know more, probably, by the end of this year and there will be more stories in the Sunday papers and it will become an ever bigger issue. That is why it is so important to have this debate now, because when the public and patients who use the NHS ask, “What were you doing about this, as MPs?”, we can say, “We’ve had this debate. Okay, it’s not come up with all the solutions just yet”—we are interested to hear what the Minister says about possible solutions—“but we are on the case.” That is important, because an avalanche of cases will come forward in the near future. It is important to recognise that.

There is a challenge from Nicholson and we need to make those savings. The problem is that this matter is standing in the way of the Nicholson challenge being effectively delivered. Either we have to push harder to gain those efficiency savings—the problem now is that we have inefficiencies of the worst kind and are essentially having to make more efficiencies elsewhere to reinvest in front-line care—or the money will not be reinvested back into front-line care. Working time directive costs are classed as front-line care, when clearly they are not, so money is being removed that could be spent on nurses or on alternative equipment for the NHS that would have benefited patients.

Health Inequalities (North-East)

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Swales]

I absolutely agree with that and will go on to say more about it. The Department of Health has an important role in being the umbrella Department for monitoring action in this area, however. The report went on to say that the Department recognised its failings, admitting that it had been

“slow to put in place the key mechanisms to deliver the target it had used for other national priorities”

and

“slow to mobilise the NHS to take effective action.”

However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much more to this than simply the NHS.

There certainly has not been a shortage of reports on this subject. The Department of Health issued 15 major publications on the issue, starting in 1998 and rising to a crescendo in 2010. In fact, 2007 was the only year in which the previous Government did not issue a publication.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could catalogue the action that was taken after the publication in 1980 of the Black report, which first demonstrated a causal link between ill health and poverty. In addition, “The Health Divide” was published towards the end of the ’80s. As I recall, because I was working in this field, there was absolutely nothing.

[Ian Swales]

I bow to the hon. Lady’s knowledge in this area. She certainly has a great deal more than I do. I do not know the answer to her question.

In 2003, the Government identified 12 cross-Government headline indicators and 82 cross-Government commitments, but sadly overall it was effective action that was the problem. In 2005, the Government identified 70 spearhead local authority areas for special attention, and credit to them for that. One third of those areas were in the north-east. However, only in London did those spearhead areas see a narrowing of health inequalities.

I know that this issue is complex, but some things are basic. The NAO report showed that more deprived areas had fewer GPs. Some had significantly fewer. They were also paid less. I was shown barely believable figures showing that Redcar and Cleveland had only half the average GP resource of the most deprived 20%. Clearly, that is not a good position to be in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this debate on a matter of considerable importance, and not only for the UK. Non-communicable diseases are a problem around the world, and inequalities also exist in Tanzania. I welcome Tanzanian MPs’ interest, as I do my new daughter-in-law, Maureen Rachel Mwasha, who married my son in Dar es Salaam at Christmas.

However, I will return to inequalities, if you will forgive me, Mrs Riordan. It cannot be right that people in one part of the country are likely to live about 11 years longer than people elsewhere, or that the likelihood of developing heart disease or cancer is determined to a significant degree by postcode. I stress that some of the detail of inequality is missed, and that it is necessary to consider large, significant but often hidden populations of inequality in otherwise affluent areas.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, inequalities in the north-east are particularly poignant and generally worse than in England as a whole, but although I recognise that spending on health increased under the past Government, so did health inequalities. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) stated, links between education, employment and health are well recognised, but we inherited a dreadful budget deficit, a terrible economic climate and worsening health inequalities.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anne Milton]

I am afraid that time does not allow me to.

Health in the north-east has historically been poor due to a legacy of heavy industries such as coal mining and shipbuilding, lifestyle choices and a complex web of factors. Levels of deprivation are high and life expectancy for both men and women is lower than the national average. Members might be interested to know that the Hartlepool shadow health and wellbeing board is already having a detailed debate about tackling the issues mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, including child immunisation. The proposed health reforms are enabling the people of Hartlepool to address the issues through local solutions instead of a top-down approach.

Even within local health authorities, wide and unacceptable health inequalities remain. Life expectancy can vary by as much as 18 years within a relatively small geographical area. On the plus side, although previously falling rates of early death from cancer have started to level off, death rates from all causes among males have fallen faster than the national average in recent years.

I reassure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that I do not pretend about anything. She must look to her own party for the answers to her concerns. They were in Government for 13 years.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anne Milton]

I have only six minutes, and I have numerous questions to answer. The north-east has made commendable efforts to tackle its problems, acknowledging some of the things that happened under the last Government. At the core of Better Health, Fairer Health is a drive to tackle inequalities through multi-agency partnerships.

The north-east has its own tobacco control office, the first of its kind in the UK; Fresh began life in 2005. I am sure that the local authorities will recognise the work that has been done. It will be down to them to decide how the money is spent in local areas to improve their stubborn smoking rates. In the north-east, Fresh has managed to reduce the number of smokers by 137,000, and local NHS stop smoking services continue to provide support to the highest number of people in England. We in Government have introduced a tobacco control plan, and I assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central that we will be consulting on plain packaging and continuing progress, as detailed in the plan, which I am sure she has seen.

However, the major part of poor health in the area will be remedied only by widespread changes in behaviour. It is this Government’s policy to encourage people to change how they live—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might gain slightly more from this debate if they listened to the answers rather than shouting at me from across the Chamber. We cannot frog-march people out of the off-licence, compel them to stop smoking or force them to practise safe sex. Our challenge is to make the case that freedom without responsibility is not sustainable, so for the first time, allowing for the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill through the House, the Secretary of State will have a specific responsibility to tackle health inequalities, whatever their cause, and will be backed up by similar duties— [Interruption.]

National Health Service

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No, because I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman many times. Let me tell him this. If he was going to offer to try to work with others on GP commissioning, he ought at least to have demonstrated before the election that he was going to do something about it; and using a transparent political ploy to try and interfere with the passage of the legislation in another place carries no credibility with me or with anyone else. Labour’s tabling of a motion in the other place in an attempt to block the Bill completely showed no willingness to work together, and the fact that it was defeated by 134 votes ought to have given the right hon. Gentleman a reason—and sufficient humility—not to try to return to the subject by tabling today’s motion.

As I said earlier, I find it regrettable that neither the right hon. Gentleman’s motion nor his speech made any attempt to deal with what has happened in the NHS over the past year. Let me tell him, and the House—for I know my right hon. and hon. Friends will be interested as well—what has, in truth, happened during that time.

At the end of the last Labour Government, the average in-patient wait was 8.4 weeks. According to the latest available figures, that has fallen to 8.1 weeks. The average waiting time for out-patients was 4.3 weeks at the time of the last election; it is now 4.1 weeks. Over the last year, the number of MRSA bloodstream infections in hospitals has fallen by a third, and the number of clostridium difficile infections by 16%. Nearly three quarters of a million more people have access to NHS dentistry. Nearly 2 million people have access to the new 111 urgent care service, and the whole country will be covered within the next 18 months. When we came to office, I discovered that there had been talk about a 111 telephone system, but nothing had been done. It is now happening.

More than 75% of stroke patients now spend 90% or more of their hospital stay in a stroke unit. That is a 20% increase in two years. The Cancer Drugs Fund has given more than 5,000 patients access to the drugs that they desperately need, and which under the last Government’s regime would not have been available to them. We have embarked on an £800 million investment in translational research, increasing our financial support for it by 30%, to help to secure the United Kingdom as a world leader in health research.

The NHS is leading the way in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, with 86% of patients receiving an assessment for the condition. I believe that that constitutes an increase of some 30% in the last year. The bowel cancer screening programme is enabling many more patients and members of the public to be screened, there is more screening for diabetic retinopathy than ever before, and there were 188,000 more diagnostic tests in the three months to August than there were last year. Pathfinder clinical commissioning groups have been established virtually through England, and there are 138 health and wellbeing boards in local authorities, meeting and putting together their strategies to deliver population health gain across their areas.

In a single year, the year preceding the election, the right hon. Member for Leigh presided over a 32% increase in NHS management costs. That was the year after the banks had gone bust. It was the year when it was obvious that Government deficits were out of control. It was the year when the debt crisis was just about to crash over the whole public sector. What happened on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? There was a 23% increase in management costs in a single year, to £350 million. In the year that followed, we reduced those costs to £329 million.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State tell us what the percentage of senior managers is, and how that compares with the percentage in the private sector?

[Mr Lansley]

Does the hon. Lady act as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Secretary of State? Ah, she does. Well, she has the merit of consistency. I am reminded that in June 2006, when for a short period she was chair—I think—of Rochdale primary care trust, she resigned. She said that she resigned because the radical changes happening under the then Labour Government in 2006 would

“destroy the NHS as we know it.”

The hon. Lady has the merit of being consistent: she is against every Government and every change. She does not think that any steps will make the NHS into what it ought to be. I will not take any lectures from her, therefore.

I was explaining to the hon. Lady and the House what has been achieved. We have stripped out pointless bureaucracy. The number of managers more than doubled under Labour, but we have cut their number by more than 5,000, and we have increased the number of doctors in the NHS by more than 1,500. The Bill includes measures to abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, but in the meantime we have clustered PCTs and SHAs together.

We are reducing the cost of bureaucracy in the NHS not only because it is necessary to do so. The transfer to clinically led commissioning in the NHS, for which there is a very good case of course, also involves reducing such costs. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has frequently made clear, as part of the transfer process we will deliver £4.5 billion in savings in administration costs this year across the national health service. The transition itself involves costs of course, but they will be recovered by the end of 2012-13, and by the end of the Parliament we will have gone on to save more than £4.5 billion in total.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). I do not want to impugn his integrity, or to suggest that what he wants for the NHS is not exactly what I want. The issue is how we do that. Unfortunately, some unhelpful remarks were made in the run-up to the general election. At the least, they were disingenuous; at worst they were duplicitous. This debate is about trust, and there are serious questions about whether we can trust the Government with our NHS.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has argued that pre-election pledges have been broken, and I want to speak specifically about how that relates to NHS funding. The first broken promise came within months of the general election. We have heard about the posters that we all saw as we went round our constituencies, showing a congenial right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, promising to

“cut the deficit, not the NHS”.

Last October’s spending review seemed to support that position, with a 1.3% increase in NHS resource spending and real-terms growth of what seemed to be 0.4%. The Secretary of State, who is just returning to his place, was unable to answer my question on that. I want to talk abut management costs, because the Department is focusing on that spending. It is important to be clear about management costs in the NHS budget. In 1999, they were less than 3%; in 2010, they were just over 3%. Independent research has shown that, if anything, the NHS is under-managed rather than over-managed. [Interruption.] I can certainly provide evidence for hon. Members.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I am sorry; I am not going to give way.

We should compare our health care management costs with those in the United States, where they run at over 20%. We need to be very careful about what we are talking about.

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am not going to give way—I am sorry.

In this year’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s higher inflation forecast meant that NHS spending is now falling in real terms. House of Commons Library calculations show that it will fall by about 1% in real terms over the next four years—a loss in spending power of more than £1 billion by 2015. In the light of the recent inflation figures—[Interruption.] To help hon. Members out, last year’s figure was 5.6% based on the retail prices index. As inflation is at a three-year high, the loss in spending power is likely to be even greater. To keep his election promise, the Prime Minister would have to spend at least £1 billion more than he is doing.

This month’s King’s Fund report on NHS performance shows the effects of these financial pressures on the NHS, with the majority of finance directors saying that they are very or fairly pessimistic about the financial future of their local health economy. The Health and Social Care Bill, which is being debated in the other place, very conveniently sets out ways to help struggling foundation trusts. First, they can borrow money from the City to invest. Secondly, because foundation trusts will have to repay the money they have borrowed by treating more NHS patients and more private patients, they have been helped by the abolition of the cap on private patients’ income. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, by raising income in this way they become economic enterprises and open themselves up to part B of EU competition law, so that they have to compete for every tender with private sector companies such as Capita, United Health, and so on. Incidentally, seven trusts, including in the Secretary of State’s constituency, have already said that they will be increasing the private bed cap. There is a private hospital in the Cambridgeshire University hospitals foundation trust area. Finally, when—not if—a foundation trust still ends up in financial meltdown, the Bill’s new failure regime means that they will be able to sell off NHS publicly owned assets to private equity companies. There are direct parallels with Southern Cross.

The impact of that is already being felt in patient care. In addition to what is said by constituents attending my and many of my hon. Friends’ surgeries, the King’s Fund report showed that the proportion of patients waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment has increased nationally. Over a quarter of NHS trusts admitted fewer than 90% of their patients within 18 weeks. In my constituency, Pennine acute hospitals trust is able to treat only 70% of patients within its 18-week targets. That is more than double the number of trusts failing to meet the 18-week target in 2010.

I am afraid, however, that an increase in waiting lists is what the Government want; it is one of the intended consequences of the Bill. This increase in demand is feeding the growing private health care and insurance market. We know from the US that as people on low incomes will be less likely to be able to afford these products, there will be a direct impact on the inequalities that the Secretary of State says that he wants to reduce.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is concerned about health inequalities. Is she as worried as I am about changing the weighting of health inequalities in allocations of funding? In Salford, our experience is that that can push GP practices in deprived areas into the red in their indicative budgets, so they will be cutting down referrals and reconsidering treatments—another way of denigrating and cutting the benefits of services to patients.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that in a minute.

In fact, that is broken promise No. 2. Last week in Health questions, I asked the Secretary of State why, in December last year, he made a political decision, against the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to maintain the health inequalities component of PCTs’ funding allocation at 15%, and instead reduced it to 10%. He replied that he had made no decision against the advice of that Committee. However, it is quite clear from last September’s letter to him from the chair of the Committee that that is exactly what he did:

“I would like to draw your attention to ACRA’s position in relation to the health inequalities adjustment. We recommend that the current form of the adjustment is retained”.

The

“current form of the adjustment”

was 15%, and the Secretary of State made a political decision to reduce that. He should be apologising to the House for misleading us in his response to my question. The effect of that reduction is to shift funding from poor health areas to good health areas. The Secretary of State owes an apology to the people in those areas, as well.

I turn to broken promise No. 3. Although the move of public health to local authorities is welcome in principle, the timing could not be worse. Already, we are seeing plans that jeopardise the public health function as they move into local authorities besieged with cuts. As Labour has consistently argued, our health and social care system needs to balance the treatment and care of people who are poorly with creating supportive environments that enable all our citizens to live as healthily as possible for as long as possible—focusing upstream on stopping people falling in rather than on pulling them out further downstream, to use a familiar metaphor. That is absolutely key, but unfortunately the current approach means that it is not going to happen. For example, public health budgets, said to be ring-fenced, are not being ring-fenced. The shadow budgets that were being provided to public health departments for 2012 were supposed to increase from 3.7% to just over 4%, but further analysis showed that that increase was due to merging the public health and drug action team budgets, and not to any new moneys. There was, in effect, no real increase in public health funding.

I anticipate a future broken promise in relation to what the Secretary of State has said about privatisation: I think it will be a case of “Watch this space.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

Trafford. I beg your pardon. However, the year before I was born, my parents had a son who died at the age of seven months. The year before that, they had another son who died at the age of eight months. I was born on 5 July 1948, two days after the health service, and I have my five brothers and sisters alive to this day. It is that important.

When I worked as a porter for 10 years at the Middlesex hospital, where my sister and wife were nurses and one of my brothers was an ambulance driver—half the family seemed to be employed there—we realised the consequences of the pragmatic approach to the health service. We had a private patients wing where people like myself, paid by the national health service, did work for people who paid money to a difference source, and where doctors trained under the NHS got personal recompense. One of the single most important aspects of our lives has been political from day one.

Each of the Health Ministers will remember, as I do, that we have sat in the same House as an hon. Member who lost his seat over a hospital closure. Let us never forget Wyre Forest and Kidderminster hospital. It is almost impossible to be objective about this issue. When the Turnberg report was published, it proposed an entirely sensible reconfiguration of London’s acute general hospitals, but it was opposed by almost everyone because of parochial and local issues. When polyclinics were proposed under the previous Government—one of the most logical, sensible, rational and helpful ways of providing primary health care—they were violently opposed by the Conservative party.

The situation now is that there is no consensus. However, I have not often seen anything quite so consensual, positive and forward-looking as the reference in today’s motion to an offer made by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Health Secretary of

“cross-party talks on reforming NHS commissioning.”

What could be better for the country, and for the reputation of this House, than our recognising that the NHS is not a political football or an issue on which we can strike postures? Yes, there are ideological differences between us, and Opposition Members may wish to see a greater infusion of finance-led choice, more and more commercialisation and an end to the Whitley system, which has survived for so many years. They may wish to see local pay bargaining setting hospital against hospital, clinic against clinic and clinician against clinician, with a constant stream of industrial disputes as localised pay bargaining bursts out all over the place in some industrial conflagration that attracts even more attention. At the moment we have one of the lowest numbers of hospital managers anywhere in Europe, and we will inevitably have to spend more and more on a greater and greater number of managers to deal with all that localised bargaining.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Pound]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, who knows far more about the subject than I do.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I am greatly enjoying his speech. Does he agree that the opening up of competition under the Health and Social Care Bill as it stands will be a real threat to the NHS as we know it?

[Stephen Pound]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and may I place it on record that, as I am sure virtually everybody in the House would agree, she has brought enormous expertise in this area to the House, for which we are extremely grateful?

The NHS cannot be disaggregated. It has to be a national health service, not a notional health service, a postcode health service, a better-in-some-parts-than-others health service or a good-for-Kensington-bad-for-Kidderminster health service. It has to be for the nation, and why? Because Beveridge did not just produce a one-point proposal for the NHS. There were actually five evils that he wished to slay. It was an integrated proposal that addressed want, hunger, ambition and other issues.

The NHS is not just an agency to patch people up; it is part of providing a healthy, productive nation and increasing the good and the good life within this country. At so many levels, we have to look beyond the bottom line and beyond, as the hon. Member for Southport said, the bean-counting philosophy. The NHS should not be about the click of the abacus in some cobwebbed recess, or about constantly seeking whether things can be bought cheaper here or commissioned for a lower price there. It should not be about container-loads of cheap goods being shipped in from Shanghai because some GP commissioning group somewhere has discovered it can get a discount on Tubigrip. It should be about the recognition that the health of a nation is utterly crucial, basic and intrinsic to that nation’s hope and future. Without health, we have no future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that we all share my hon. Friend’s view of the great importance of this matter. The Department of Health leads on ensuring that health care is available to people who have been rescued by the police from human trafficking. We also lead on promoting an awareness that local government has multi-agency safeguarding processes to assist in supporting people who have been abused and harmed. There is more to say, but I will write to my hon. Friend on the subject.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T5. In the evidence session on the Health and Social Care Bill, the Secretary of State told me that he was committed to reducing health inequalities. We also heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) on that subject a few moments ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain why he made a political decision last December, against the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, to reduce the health inequalities component of primary care trusts’ target funding from 15% to 20%, in effect shifting funding from poor health areas such as my constituency to richer health areas such as his own? The Government are saying one thing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got the question.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke of health inequalities in her constituency. Perhaps she should look at the King’s Fund’s annual review of NHS performance between 1997 and 2010, which

“identified the lack of progress in reducing health inequalities as the most significant health policy failure of the last decade.”

Opposition Members should bear that in mind when they talk of a two-tier health service, because they fail to focus on outcomes and they fail to focus on inequalities.

I welcome the duty of the Secretary of State, the NHS commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups to have regard to reducing health inequalities. Let us see something done about that scandal. I also welcome the work of the NHS Future Forum in setting out the central dilemma surrounding the role of the Secretary of State. The NHS should be freed from day-to-day political interference, but it must also be clear that the Secretary of State retains ultimate responsibility.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Wollaston]

I will not, because so many Members are waiting to speak.

There has been real scaremongering about, in particular, the difference between the duty to provide and the duty to secure provision, but I believe that the wording simply reflects the reality. The key issue is the line between the ability to step in if things go wrong, and the very real need for politicians to step back and let clinicians and patients take control.

I shall cut my speech short because I have been asked to be brief, but let me end by saying that, for three clear reasons, I would not be supporting the Bill if I thought that it would lead to the privatisation of the NHS. [Hon. Members: “Have you read it?”] I assure Members that I have read it in great detail.

Let me give those three clear reasons. First, clinicians will be in charge of commissioning. Secondly, the public will be able to see what clinicians are doing. Thirdly, neither clinicians nor the public will allow privatisation to happen. They do not want it to happen, and neither do Members of this House.

PCTs and foundation trusts did not meet in public, but they will do so in future, and it is the public and patients who will ensure that the NHS is safe in the hands of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

No.

I return to the choice offered in this group of amendments between the Government and Opposition Members. The Government are putting forward a range of amendments to protect patients’ interests and to safeguard them when providers run into difficulties and access to services is threatened. The amendments show that the Government have listened and improved the Bill. These amendments are on top of the changes made at earlier stages to strengthen the safeguards and protections offered by Monitor as a new provider regulator.

The Opposition simply want to delete the whole of that part—delete the safeguards to stop price competition, delete the means to stop cherry-picking, delete the means to enable NHS providers to work on a level playing field. The Government’s new clauses and amendments move us forward with the right safeguards in place. Labour would take us back. I urge the House to support the Government new clauses and amendments in this group—specifically, new clauses 2 and 6 and amendments 90 to 107, 113 to 220, and 366 to 372.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has insisted that the amended Health and Social Care Bill shows that the Government are listening, but despite their reassurances there are many reasons why the Bill remains a threat to the future of the NHS. Central to the reforms is the proposal to increase competition across the NHS by opening it up to providers, particularly those from the private sector. The Government claim that increasing competition drives down costs and improves quality, but overwhelming international evidence suggests that this simply is not the case in health care.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady placing on the record her party’s opposition to any form of competition in the NHS?

[Debbie Abrahams]

As we have shown, we are not opposed to private sector involvement in the UK’s health system. What is important is that it should add value and capacity. The Government’s proposals are a completely different ball game.

[Mark Simmonds]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I will make some progress.

The listening exercise failed to register the concern of many health professionals. Despite what the Government say, many health professionals feel very concerned about the amended Bill. Instead, the Government changed Monitor’s duty from one of promoting competition, as set out in the first version of the Bill, to one of preventing anti-competitive practice. The lawyers will have an absolute field day with that one. The Government talk of reducing bureaucracy, but I think we will see even more bureaucracy as a result of this.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend recall, as I do, that time and again in the recommitted Bill Committee we asked Ministers and Professor Field what the impact of that change would be? We are still waiting for a satisfactory answer.

[Debbie Abrahams]

There are many unanswered questions about the Bill, which makes it particularly dangerous.

By opening up competition under the guise of increasing patient choice and clinician-led commissioning, the Government are trying to increase both demand and supply for these services, but the implication for a single-payer health system with a fixed budget, such as the NHS, is that this will inevitably lead to financial meltdown. The only way this can be avoided is by injecting extra capital into the system and the Bill achieves this in many ways. We need to look at not only this cluster of amendments but all the amendments and clauses in the Bill as a whole, because they are interrelated.

First, the Bill allows foundation trusts to borrow money from the City to invest. This is supported by the opening up of EU competition law. Foundation trusts are currently social enterprises and are exempt from part of EU competition, but this opening up will open the flood gates. It means that the trusts will have to compete for tenders with private health care companies. They will have to repay the money they have borrowed by treating more and more patients, including private patients, which will be aided by the abolition of the cap on income from private patients. However, many foundation trusts will still struggle, so the Bill introduces a new insolvency regime to enable private equity companies to buy NHS facilities and asset-strip them, which has direct parallels with the demise of Southern Cross.

Secondly, waiting lists will go up. We are already seeing that across the country, including in my constituency. We have seen that already because unrealistic efficiency measures mean that cash-strapped primary care trusts are rationing access to treatment such as cataract surgery and hip replacements.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that waiting lists have not gone up in England but have gone up in Wales, where Labour is in control of the NHS?

[Debbie Abrahams]

It is very interesting that the Government have changed how they measure waiting lists and now use an average, so those indicators are a movable feast.

As waiting lists go up, new health insurance products on the market are enticing people to believe that all their treatment and care can be met fully by the private sector. This will be complemented by new insurance markets set up for top-ups and co-payments. We know from the United States that people on low incomes will be less able to afford these products directly, which will impact on the existing health inequalities that the Secretary of State has stressed his commitment to reducing. Why are we doing this? It will increase and exacerbate the inequalities that already exist in accessing care.

Finally, the Bill allows both the national commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups to make charges. I foresee that in the next Parliament there will be more direct patient charges if this Government get in again. As the NHS budget is fixed, the drive for excess capacity will drain that budget rapidly. That will result in clinical commissioning consortia increasingly becoming rationing bodies. As waiting lists increase, they will attempt to manage the issue by reducing the number of core services. That will drive foundation trusts into further debt, forcing closures, mergers and private management takeovers, and we are already seeing that.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On the point about foundation trust mergers, when was the last time the Office of Fair Trading was in charge of a merger of one foundation trust and another? Was it not in fact the Co-operation and Competition Panel, which, according to the Bill, will sit within Monitor?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. He is absolutely right.

The Secretary of State’s duty to secure and provide a comprehensive health service is a key issue and needs protecting in full. It should not be changed at all. Why are we changing it if is already acceptable? I am sure that we will revisit the matter tomorrow.

Although the Government have supposedly made concessions, recognising that attempting to privatise the NHS, just as the utilities were privatised in the 1980s would not be acceptable to the public, they have changed tack, not direction. Opening up the NHS to EU competition law may dramatically increase the amount of capital available to bring into our health service, but ultimately that capital will flow back to investors at a profit, at the expense of patients and the UK taxpayer. That will only increase income and health care inequalities even further—another way in which the Secretary of State’s duty will not be met. It is clear that the NHS cannot survive the Bill. The NHS needs appropriate reform and proper accountability, but definitely not an opening up of the market in this way.

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

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that when her party introduced foundation trusts back in 2003, many of us warned that it would lead to precisely the kind of privatisation that is now being threatened? Does she now regret that?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Fortunately, I was not a Member of Parliament at that time. As I said earlier, I have no problem with the private sector’s being part of our health system when it adds capacity and value, but the Bill is a whole new ball game.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

There is a fundamental difference between this Bill and any other on the health service. The Government are writing the Enterprise Act 2002 directly into the Bill, which means that it refers to foundation trusts as enterprises and businesses. That extends the ability to merge with business, not just within the NHS framework. That means that the Government have potentially opened up the NHS to European and UK competition law, and they know that full well.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

What does the hon. Lady say to Professor Stephen Field, who was the chairman of the independent NHS Future Forum? He told the Bill Committee:

“When we spoke to the Government and…a lot of senior staff at the Department of Health…we did not, at any time, pick up any feeling that anyone wanted a free open market where people could come in and privatise the NHS, as some people have said in the press.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2011; c. 15, Q26.]

[Debbie Abrahams]

I would be happy to forward to the hon. Gentleman a British Medical Journal article that reproduced in full the concerns of health care professionals that were not included in that account. Unfortunately, there is an element of bias in how they have been reported.

[Frank Dobson]

Steve Field was a great asset to the Government when he was president of the Royal College of General Practitioners and overwhelmingly welcomed everything that they were proposing. That was probably why he was replaced by a new president who does not do that.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank my right hon. Friend.

When I raised these issues in the recent recommitted Bill Committee, the Minister suggested that I was scaremongering and, with the rest of those on the Government side, refused to accept any of our amendments—not a single one. Given what recent revelations are proving, perhaps he would like to withdraw some of his comments and concede that I have not been scaremongering.

I urge Liberal Democrat MPs who have felt compelled to support this Bill and their Front-Bench colleagues but whose conscience tells them that it is wrong to vote against the amendments and the Bill. This is not what they signed up to.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled for consideration. I also welcome the very detailed way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced what is, as I am sure he will acknowledge, a substantial group of amendments. He emphasised that their purpose is to give effect to the undertaking that the Government gave when they set up the NHS Future Forum to ensure that the findings of that forum are reflected in the legislation, and that the Bill, when it reaches the statute book, is built on the work of Professor Field and his colleagues.

One purpose of the amendments is to respond to many of the points that have been made, throughout the passage of the Bill, about the role of Monitor. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that many of those observations about the supposed role of Monitor have been based on a misunderstanding, whether deliberate or otherwise, of the intention behind the Bill when it was first introduced. Whether the misunderstanding was deliberate or accidental, the Government are responding to virtually all those points in order to make it clear that, in the context of the Bill, the central purpose of Monitor is not to be a blind economic regulator based on the assumption that the health service is simply another utility. Various loose words have been used that bear that construction—but never by Ministers, and the implications of those observations have never been accepted by Ministers. As I have understood it—this is why I have supported the Bill throughout its passage—the Government’s intention has always been to ensure that the new NHS envisaged by the Bill gives effect to the basic commitment on which the Government were elected to ensure that the health service secures equitable access to high-quality health care for all patients regardless of their ability to pay.

NHS Future Forum

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I agree very much with that. The Future Forum’s report, particularly the part that deals with clinical advice and leadership, has given us a robust structure for engagement with the range of professions that are capable of delivering that kind of integrated, joined-up and more effective care.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure us that no services or hospitals will be taken over by the private sector?

[Mr Lansley]

There are no plans in the legislation or, indeed, in the Future Forum’s recommendations that would lead to that. In particular, as the hon. Lady will see in the detail published with the written ministerial statement this morning, we have proposed that Monitor should have no power to allow the private sector access to NHS facilities for reasons of competition and to take them away from NHS providers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She raises an important point about children’s exposure to such imagery from a variety of media sources. It is crucial for the future public health of our country that children get help and support over this and are able to learn the skills they need, and we are determined to get that right. Many of our plans are laid out in the White Paper, and we look forward to seeing them become a reality.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State or the Minister confirm whether they will take up the offer from my Front Bench for bipartisan discussions about the future of adult social care—or will he put political interests before the public interest?

[Mr Lansley]

We were very clear that the commission that we established, led by Andrew Dilnot, should look at the reform of long-term social care funding in such a way as to secure maximum understanding, consensus and agreement. Andrew Dilnot has gone about that process in an exemplary manner, and the right thing for us to do now is await his report, which should then form a basis for taking things forward.