Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The purpose of the ring-fencing is not to force local authorities to spend money on public health that they would not otherwise spend, but to be very clear that that NHS money is in the hands of local authorities to deliver health gain. We want that transparency, and we want to link those resources directly to the achievement of the public health outcomes that we set out in draft in our consultation on the public health outcomes framework. As there is that separate intention to deliver overall public health outcomes, linked to the local health improvement plans, we wanted to be clear that those resources would be deployed for that purpose. But local authorities will have very wide discretion about how they deliver those services locally to secure that health gain.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that the public could be forgiven for worrying that things will get worse, rather than better, in relation to public health? That is true of his health reforms across the piece, partly because, as we know, some local authorities are already cutting public expenditure given the budget cuts that they have to make, but also because of the difficulty in effectively ring-fencing the new funds that will be given to local authorities in due course.

[Mr Lansley]

In the first instance, I am not sure how the hon. Lady can argue that there is a difficulty with ring-fencing public health budgets, as they are not and will not be formally in the hands of local authorities until 2013-14. Clearly, there are no such practical issues at the moment. Further, she should have reflected the simple fact that we are already working between the NHS and local authorities to deliver much greater co-ordination in health, public health and social care. For example, this financial year, because we made savings in the Department of Health’s budget, we were able to provide, through primary care trusts, £162 million extra for the purpose of delivering improvements in social care in local authorities. Local authorities are having to deal with substantial reductions in their formula grant and some reductions in their spending power, but the NHS and social care are getting a substantial increase in support, both from the formula grant of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and specifically through the NHS.

Life Expectancy (Inequalities)

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity, despite the sparsity of Members in the Chamber today, to debate one of the many reports that we have published since July, when we were established as the new Public Accounts Committee for this Parliament. I take the opportunity to thank the members of my Committee who, although many have not stayed for the debate this Thursday afternoon, do a fantastic job in coming to grips with all the issues on our hugely busy and diverse agenda and in holding the Executive to account over a vast range of areas. I thank the staff of the House, particularly our Committee Clerk and his staff, for working incredibly hard to keep up with the volume of work, and the National Audit Office, which always provides us with excellent material as a basis for our investigations into this vast range of Government business.

Health inequality is the most awful and terrible thing. People who live in poorer wards can expect to die seven years earlier than people who live in the most affluent wards in this country. Furthermore, they spend, on average, 17 years of their lives with a disability. That is unacceptable in a free, democratic, fair and compassionate society. Let me give some reality to those statistics. Some 3,000 more individuals die than otherwise might have done as a result of the dreadful inequalities between the richest and poorest areas. My own personal passion for tackling inequality comes, in part, from the knowledge that I have of how it impacts on my own constituency. The estimates say that, if someone lived most of their life in Barking and Dagenham, they are likely to die eight years earlier than a person who lived most of their life in Kensington and Chelsea.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are twice as many doctors in Wandsworth as there are in Barking and Dagenham, and that for every stop further that a person lives on the Jubilee line between Westminster and Canning Town, their life expectancy goes down by at least a year?

[Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and I want to spend quite a lot of my contribution talking about the distribution of general practitioners, and the relationship between that and health inequalities.

As a Committee, we believe that addressing health inequality should be at the heart of every Government. All MPs from all political parties share the desire and commitment to work towards eradicating those inequalities. It is because it is a shared ambition that our report makes particularly depressing reading. The previous Government came into power publicly committed to reducing health inequalities, so there was a strong political commitment to achieve progress in the area. During the 13 years of that Government, there was a huge injection of money into the health service, which resulted in welcome improvements for everybody, including increases in life expectancy among the whole population. We now have life expectancy for men of 78 years and for women of 82 years. In our session on pensions yesterday, we received evidence from the King’s Fund that showed a massive improvement in life expectancy over the past decade or so, whereas in the last century there was hardly any improvement.

Given the general positive trend, it is horribly depressing to see that, while the health of the nation as a whole has improved, the gap between the richest and poorest, as measured by life expectancy, has widened. If we compare the life expectancy of men in the spearhead authorities—the most deprived authorities, in which a quarter of the population live, that were selected by the previous Government—the absolute gap and the relative gap increased between 1998 and 2007-09. In absolute terms, the increase was 8.6% and in relative terms it was 4.6%. If we look at the same statistics for women, the absolute gap increased by 9.3% for women and the relative gap by 6.5%.

What is so worrying about those statistics is that the gap between the richest and poorest women is growing at a faster rate than the same gap between the richest and poorest men. As yet, we do not have any good answers for why that is—unless the Minister can help us—except that women are smoking more today than they were a generation ago and are, therefore, more prone to diseases such as lung cancer that then kill them. I urge the Government to do some better evidence collecting so that we can understand what is happening and see whether we can take appropriate action to improve the figures.

Given our real determination to tackle health inequalities, why have we failed so far, and what should this Government do to improve performance and therefore close those unacceptable inequalities? We all understand that this is a hugely difficult area, and it is not just an issue for the health service; inequalities arise from socio-economic factors. If we consider the evidence, most of the inequalities—between 80% and 85%—come from socio-economic factors, such as income, education and housing, and probably between 15% and 20% arise from poor access to good-quality health services. It is important, therefore, that the health service does what it can. If it performed better, we would reduce that gap, but on its own it cannot tackle the problems of life expectancy that arise from whether someone is rich or poor or where they tend to live.

If we accept the importance of those wide socio-economic factors, it is vital that we have a comprehensive and coherent approach across Government. Integrating health inequalities into the wider agenda of tackling poverty inequality becomes hugely important. Without wanting to be politically partisan, I have to strike a warning note about the proposed cuts in public expenditure, which look as though they will hit the poorest hardest. If that is the case, I have not yet seen anything that provides me with the comfort that the direction of travel will reduce inequalities. In fact, quite the contrary, inequalities could be intensified. Will the Minister address that issue in her response to the debate?

I urge the Government to keep a focus on health inequalities as part of their agenda of tackling poverty and general inequality, and to judge all the actions that they take by how they will impact on health inequalities. That focus is hugely important.

[Margaret Hodge]

Absolutely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who took through our recent inquiry into cancer. That inquiry demonstrated that, if there is that focus, outcomes will improve, although we can always do better. Having set the context in my opening remarks, I was going to make that point: access to and the responsiveness of the health service are hugely important. We need to do a lot of work to improve those things.

Tackling health inequality must be a real priority for everybody involved, which is the first lesson that we learned from our inquiry. It is not just about the politicians, for whom it has always been a priority. It must be a priority for the Department of Health, the new NHS commissioning board, GPs and all health service providers, local authorities, pharmacists and all others who have an interest in ensuring that we are healthy and live longer.

There is a criticism to be made of the previous Government. They were good at writing policy papers, but less good at following through those policies with specific actions. There were plenty of papers. We had the commitment in 1997, when the Government came in. We had the Acheson report in 1998. We had a target in the comprehensive spending review in 2000, which was pretty general but was about reducing inequalities. We had a refined target in 2002, which was more specific but perhaps a little less ambitious, and was aimed at reducing inequalities by 10% in the 20% of health authorities where there was the lowest life expectancy. We had a plan of action in 2003. That is an interesting point to pause at, because that plan of action had 82 so- called commitments. I do not think that our Committee looked at the plan in detail. I certainly have not done so. By December 2006, the then Government claimed to have met 75 of those 82 commitments, but we know from the statistics that the outcomes grew worse in terms of inequality. So there is something to be learned from the focus of that plan of action.

In the 2004 comprehensive spending review, the then Government revised and revisited the target. Again, we focused on it. We made it slightly less ambitious but more specific by focusing on 70 spearhead areas of the country. However, there is a danger with that approach, because more than half of the people who have an unequal life expectancy outcome at present do not live in those 70 spearhead areas. Inevitably, therefore, by concentrating action on those areas, we were leaving out far too many people.

Finally, in 2006—nine years after the previous Government came into office—reducing inequalities became one of the top NHS priorities. I think that it was at that point that we started to get things right. One of the lessons to learn from that is that, if we are not specific and focused, and tackling health inequality is not a high priority, we will not deliver, despite having the best intentions. In 2007, we got the primary care trusts to report on the progress that they had made on health inequalities.

Therefore, the view of the Committee is that reducing health inequality must be an explicit priority throughout the system and that it must be measured. I hope that the Minister will agree with that comment and I look forward to hearing her response to learn how she will ensure that the agenda on reducing health inequality is taken forward by this Government.

[Ms Abbott]

I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend, who has had the opportunity to study these matters in detail. Does she agree that one of the problems in tackling health inequalities is that it does turn on good public health, which has never had the glamour or the immediacy of acute care in hospitals?

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree and I will develop that point a little later. However, the previous Government almost doubled the expenditure on public health, from an incredibly low base: it was 1.9% and it increased to 3.6% of NHS spending. I hope that the present Government will do even better in that regard. However, spending on public health is still a minute part of NHS resources, especially when it is an area that would prevent a lot of the health inequalities from emerging. Having conducted a study on cancer, both my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) would agree that the earlier that one can diagnose a condition the better the outcome. That was a key finding of the report that our Committee published this week on cancer.

I move to the issue of resources and I will talk about it in three contexts. First, I will talk about the resources—the actual money—that are distributed between geographical areas. Secondly, I will talk about the distribution of general practitioners. Thirdly, I will talk about the expenditure on prevention.

On resources, our study made it clear that at present there is an inequitable distribution of resources. The report showed that, in 2010-11, 68%—more than two out of three—of the spearhead PCTs were still not receiving the money that they should have been receiving on a needs-based allocation formula. That meant that more than £400 million of NHS money was diverted from those neediest areas to other parts of the country.

From the response of the Government in the Treasury minute, I know that they will continue to try to redistribute resources, but I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some indication of a time frame within which she would hope that there would be a much fairer distribution of resources to reflect need and therefore at least to give our neediest areas the capability and capacity to tackle health inequality.

I also note from the response of the Government in the Treasury minute that responsibility for the distribution of resources will go to the NHS commissioning board. What comfort can the Minister give my Committee about the instructions that the Department will give to the commissioning board regarding the action that it needs to take to ensure that there is genuine equity in the distribution of funding? Again, I know from my own borough that there is a real need for political commitment and drive to achieve that redistribution of resources. Obviously, there is a limited cake, we are in difficult financial circumstances and we are trying to see how we can cut that cake differently.

I and some of my colleagues in our local PCT area had to work extremely hard with Ministers in the previous Government to achieve a fair distribution of resources for Barking and Dagenham. That was the one area where we did okay. Obviously, that work was very local and it is not a pattern that we observed when we carried out the study across Government. So that is the first issue—a proper distribution of resources to poorer areas.

On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), we must spend money on prevention. The issue of public health investment is crucial, because we know that other key causes of health inequality are what are known as “the risk factors”: obesity, smoking, drinking, diet and lack of exercise.

In that regard, the previous Government did well. They increased the spending on public health, doubling it from an extremely low base to a pretty low level of 3.6% of NHS spending in 2006-07. I think that the members of my Committee would say that we need further progress in that sector to ensure that we prevent people from developing the illnesses that limit their life expectancy.

Under the present Government’s reforms, we will have the new health and well-being boards, and they will receive resources. However, there are huge pressures on local authority budgets. Local authorities are probably having to absorb more cuts than any other part of the public sector. I have particular concerns about what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that local authorities spend the money they have, and prioritise expenditure on public health facilities and policies.

The commissioning board will have the responsibility to ensure proper expenditure on prevention, but the evidence given to the Committee showed that the problem with expenditure being devolved to GPs, who one would think were best placed in the health economy to think about investing in prevention rather than cure, is that their record in pursuing such investment is poor. GPs who have already been commissioning, and who control their budgets, do not have a good record of ensuring that they properly spend on prevention.

Finally on this point, the national health service has to find between £15 billion and £20 billion of expenditure savings, and while I accept that that money will be redirected within health, it is easiest to cut that which is most difficult to measure, which is investment in the prevention of poor health outcomes. In a climate in which the health service is trying to identify the very challenging savings that the Government have asked it to find—I accept that the savings were initiated by the previous Government—I fear that investment in preventive health measures will fall to the bottom of the agenda. How will the Minister and the Government ensure that money is properly spent on prevention?

[Ms Abbott]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even now local authorities and primary care trusts are cutting public health expenditure, for example on community midwives and smoking cessation? Such expenditure is non-statutory, and it is going. Although one appreciates the intentions of Ministers in giving local authorities ring-fenced moneys, the danger is that those authorities will, under force majeure, use the money to backfill expenditure on environmental health and social care, and I have even heard of authorities believing they can spend their public health money on leisure services.

[Margaret Hodge]

I have a rather depressing example from my own area. We have had an effective smoking cessation service, but the regional health body looked at the expenditure both there and in Waltham Forest, which is spending far less, and instead of considering the impact and effectiveness of that expenditure, asked, “If Waltham Forest can do it for less, why can’t Barking and Dagenham?” That very effective intervention is now being cut because the comparison made by the regional health body was on the basis of inputs rather than outcomes, and that is a depressing trend that we will see mirrored elsewhere in the country.

Thirdly on resources, we need to ensure that there are the right GPs in the right areas. All the statistics that were provided to the Committee on that make for extremely depressing reading. The least deprived areas of the country have on average 64 GPs per 100,000 people, and the most deprived have 57. In Barking and Dagenham we have only 40 GPs per 100,000 people. I hope those statistics are right—I got them only the other day—because it is shocking if they are. The previous Government tried to tackle that issue locally, and the Committee was given evidence about what they did nationally. For example, in 2007 we had the £250 million programme to establish 112 new practices and 150 GP-led health centres in areas with the fewest primary care clinicians. I assume that that programme is coming to an end and that most of those facilities have now opened, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that.

In my borough, we have had a paucity of GPs, and a concentration of single-person practices and very poor environments and, try as we might, we still have this very challenging problem. Over the past 10 to 12 years I have been engaged in encouraging innovation, including having salaried GPs, and linking our GPs to universities as an incentive, and we were the first borough to try to encourage private providers to come in. One of them was successful, but the health authority has, I think, closed the other one’s contract. We have new health centres and practices, but the problem is that GPs are essentially independent providers and can choose to work wherever they wish. That is a hugely important point, and not just in tackling health inequalities, because if the Government cannot make the situation better, there will be much greater pressure on accident and emergency units and hospitals, and resources will be driven into the acute sector at the expense of community services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bacon]

That is right: people will do what they are paid to do. One criticism I have also heard is that the more we treat people like employees, the more they will behave like employees. In recent years, a lot of GPs have felt more bossed around, so they act like employees, rather than people who are running their own organisations.

[Ms Abbott]

Is it not also the case that in inner-city areas, such as the east end of London, large numbers of people who are reservoirs of disease are simply not on GPs’ lists? As we move to GP commissioning, it will be important that GPs commission for the population, not just for the people who happen to be on their lists.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. One issue is the number of GPs in deprived areas, and a chart in the report shows the variation in those numbers. At one extreme, we have about 110 or 115 GPs per 100,000 of population, although that figure is an outlier, and the rest of the figures start at about 80 GPs and go down to an average of about 59 or 60. At the other extreme, in Redcar and Cleveland, the number of GPs per 100,000 of population is only 25. In other words, there is a fivefold differential between the best and the worst. Even if we cut out the extreme outliers, the figures still go from just over 40 to about 80, which is double. If there are not enough GPs in a given area, it will be that much more difficult to identify and get on to the GP list all the people we should—those whom the hon. Lady calls reservoirs of disease. That is an important public health problem, as well as a policy problem in terms of where GPs sit.

If the Minister does not mind, I would like her to comment on single-practice GPs. Although the proportion of such GPs has dropped from 34% to 22% in the most deprived areas, there are still 371 single-handed practices. All other things being equal, a single-handed practice is almost certainly not a good idea. There may be good reasons why one exists in a particular locality, and it is certainly likely to be better to have a single-handed practice than no practice, although Dr Harold Shipman comes to mind. There is also the fact that a GP is much more likely to work well if they are with a group of people than if they are by themselves; most of us work better in groups than we do wholly by ourselves. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on policy on single-handed practices and where the Government think we are heading on that. As I mentioned, I should also like to hear her comments on the proposed outcomes framework, and how she thinks the changes in the GP contract will make the kind of difference that is needed, both in getting GPs into the right areas, and in making sure that they focus enough on health inequalities.

The third part of our report applied the lessons to the wider NHS. There is of course considerable discussion and controversy about the Government’s health reforms. We are not a policy Committee, so our report does not address whether the GP consortia reforms are a good idea. People have different views on that. I have my own, and instinctively I have always been in favour of giving more authority and power to GPs, for one simple reason, which is to do with what happens whenever, in the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have sat down with a group of GPs. I accept that what happens may be because, although South Norfolk is not economically very prosperous, it is not massively deprived either, and it is a pleasant place to live. Some might even call it leafy, but we have plenty of socio-economic problems, and employment problems. I do not want to gild the lily, but it is not in most respects a deprived area compared with many others, so perhaps the GPs I meet are a biased sample. None the less, every time I sit down with general practitioners, from whichever practice in my constituency they come, I always walk away thinking, “My, what a sensible bunch of people. If only they were given more control and power in the running of the health service. Things would almost certainly work better.” Of course, the Government’s proposals are in that direction, so my instincts are to support what they are doing.

My experience of 10 years on the Committee, however, is that whenever the Government try to change anything of any kind, anywhere, they always underestimate the risk and over-egg the benefits. There are considerable risks to the change, including the fact that it is a change. All change, particularly when it involves big management change, raises risks. It is likely, I think, that the best of the people working in the primary care trusts, if they are good at managing health consortia, will be hired to do the job. If things works out as well as we all hope, we shall probably end up with better management, and fewer and better-paid people doing a sharper, leaner job than has happened with primary care trusts. In addition to lots of meetings with GPs over 10 years, I have had plenty of meetings with the primary care trusts in my constituency. When I was first elected, there were six PCTs just for my constituency, which was then one of eight in Norfolk, with a total population of 800,000. Each had its own finance director on a six-figure salary, and not all were particularly well qualified, which may be one reason why the PCTs began to get into serious financial trouble a few years ago, despite the fact that the NHS was receiving record funding increases.

I have probably dwelt on the issue a bit too long, and I am not trying to make a political point. I merely say that I instinctively have a degree of support for what the Government are trying to do in the context, but it still gives rise to a series of questions. I was quite surprised when I heard that public health would be moving away from the health service towards local authorities, because, on the basis of my experience of my local hospital, which is a good and fairly new acute hospital built in the past 10 years, and based on my experience of general practitioners, I would sooner that those responsibilities were left with clinicians than that they were given to the council.

When I see the proposal for health and well-being boards, I think “What if?” Let us think back to 1997, as the sun came up over the Thames and the then new Prime Minister Tony Blair said, among other things, that the Government were going to put reducing health inequalities at the heart of tackling the root causes of ill health. What if he had said after a couple of years, “I know; here’s another thing we’re going to do. We’re going to have something we will call health and well-being boards, and because we are in favour of democracy we’re going to give them to local councils”? What if we had then watched as not a lot happened for the next 10 years? I am just making this up, because it never happened, but say those bodies had been established, and had not achieved quite as much as we hoped: I can see that we might have gone into the general election saying, “As for those health and well-being boards run by the council, well you’ve all read about them in the Daily Mail and we’ll be getting rid of them on day one.” I am sure it will not work out in that way, and that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the risks and has them under control.

I was interested that the Department told us that the money for the public health budgets would be ring-fenced. Paragraph 22—the final paragraph of our report—said:

“The Department told us that action for improving population-wide health and reducing health inequalities would be funded from a ring-fenced public health budget.”

One of the questions I have for my hon. Friend is, “When is a ring fence not a ring fence?” I have had meetings with my local council, which is rather eager to get hold of the £11.7 million coming its way for its public health budget. It is not its impression that it will be spending it all on public health. Some of us think that it may have other priorities in different areas, which have nothing to do with public health, but which it seems to believe have merit, and for which it can make a strong case—and, indeed, many of my constituents would make a similarly strong case. I want to understand exactly what the health and well-being boards will do, and what leverage they will have over the GP consortia, to ensure that they deliver the priorities they are supposed to—or what other methods there will be to make sure that the consortia deliver those priorities.

That all comes back to what I was saying earlier to my hon. Friend about the need for greater clarity about ensuring that the outcomes framework and the new GP contract deliver what they are supposed to. I do not care whether it is health and well-being boards who do it, or whether they exist. I care that it should happen, and it is not abundantly clear to me that there is yet a picture with all the dots joined up, so that we can be sure that if health and well-being boards are carrying out that task either they will have the correct leverage over GP consortia or there will be other mechanisms in place, through the outcomes framework or the new contract, to achieve what the Government, like the previous Government, say they want to do about health inequalities.

[Ms Abbott]

It has been my experience in my present Front-Bench role that local authorities throughout the country believe, broadly speaking, that what they call public health is public health, and that they can spend the money on that. As I said earlier, they can spend it on environmental health, social care or leisure services. I am concerned precisely with the point he made: when is ring-fencing ring-fencing? Because I do not believe that the money can be effectively ring-fenced for what we would recognise as public health expense.

[Mr Bacon]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s comments. Of course, if we made sure that every schoolchild got a tangerine every day as part of their five a day, it would not be difficult to make a strong case for that being in the interests of public health. It would not be necessary to be a member of the tangerine growers association to make that argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee and the NAO on an important report that sheds light on a lot of health policy issues. I read with care the Government’s response to the report and it seemed that although it was well-meaning, it was sketchy. I hope that we will get some more detail on the points of concern to everyone who has spoken in the debate.

I cannot address the issue without repeating what the PAC has said: under my Government, inequality widened. I would not want to resile from that. I hope that the new Government can build on our achievements in fighting health inequality—there were substantial achievements—and learn from our mistakes. That is what the PAC is trying to point towards in its report. In its report summary, the PAC states:

“It is important that tackling health inequalities does not slip down the Department’s agenda.”

I will try to refrain from commenting on the drama and excitement surrounding the Government’s health reforms. However, in that drama, excitement and Sturm and Drang—as the Germans say—it would be very sad indeed if the progress made was lost sight of and the need to deal with health inequalities in practice and in a targeted fashion slipped down the agenda. One of the most important points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the PAC, was that we can have all the good will in the world but unless we are focused on the issue and there is a targeted policy approach, the outcomes that we all want to see will slip away.

Health inequalities are an international issue. In the United States, research shows that if black Americans had the same mortality rates as white Americans, there would be 800,000 fewer deaths over a decade. Even in one of the richest countries in the world, they have not been able to tackle the blight of health inequality. If we consider other countries, we will see that life expectancy for women in Zimbabwe is 42 and in Afghanistan it is 44. In contrast, that figure is 86 in Japan.

Probably the greatest single contribution to tackling health inequalities was made by Clem Attlee’s Government under the leadership of Aneurin Bevan in establishing a national health service. We were given a health service that is comprehensive, universal and free at the point of access. There is no question but that the nation’s health has improved massively since the introduction of the NHS. Yet since the 1930s, despite the creation of the NHS, vast social reforms and colossal scientific advances, the gap in mortality between professional and unskilled men has more than doubled. We need to pause and reflect on that because it shows the difficulty of engaging with inequalities.

I think it was more than 30 years ago that Julian Tudor Hart wrote about the inverse care law and pointed out that the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the needs of the population that is being served. That accounts for the very low numbers of doctors in some parts of the east end of London and so on. As we touched on earlier, people in the poorest areas of London, Manchester or Glasgow will die seven, 11 and, in Glasgow, 28 years earlier than people living in the same urban conurbation.

We have heard in the debate about what a Labour Government tried to do on health inequality. From the glittering eminence of my right hon. Friend’s position as Chair of the PAC, she said on the issue that the previous Labour Government were good at policy papers but not so good at implementation. As a humble Opposition Front Bencher, I would not dream of saying that, but I repeat what she said because it might be of interest to people who are following the debate. Of course, there is a lesson there for the Government and all of us concerned with public health. I would like to make this point about Labour’s time in government. The decline in public health outcomes did not begin with a Labour Government—or certainly not the last Labour Government. In the early 1970s, the mortality rate among men from the lower socio-economic groups was twice as high as those in the top professional groups. By the early 1990s, that was three times higher.

The then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), commissioned the Black report and we instituted a programme for action, which, as we heard, in some ways fell short. Let us not forget the advances that were made, however: shorter waiting times, many more operations, greatly improved infection control, and better survival rates for cancer and heart disease. Those advances were not just about figures. The most recent Ipsos MORI poll on voter satisfaction with the NHS showed that it had risen from when the Labour Government came in from 55% to 71%—the highest ever reported.

We did make some advances, and some of them specifically related to health inequalities: on cardiovascular disease, the gap closed by almost a third; on cancer, it closed by an eighth, and the trend should be for it to close even faster; life expectancy and infant mortality rates have improved; and last year, statistics showed that the rate of teenage pregnancies was at its lowest for a decade. We put £21 billion into early years education and child care and we have gone from having no Sure Start children’s centres in 1997 to more than 3,000. Overall, we raised total health expenditure on public health, as hon. Members said earlier. By the time we left office, we were spending 4% on public health. None the less, the gap remains.

On this side of the House, we accept the PAC report, but there are specifics in the Government’s response on which I would like to hear more information. The Government partially agree with the report’s first conclusion, which is that the gap in life expectancy is continuing to widen. However, it is not clear what the Government will do to narrow the gap more quickly than the previous Government. The second conclusion relates to cost-effective recommendations. As has been said, there are three specific recommendations: medicine for blood pressure, medicine for cholesterol, and smoking cessation. It is not clear from the Government’s response how they will embed those specific targets and strategies into the system that they are building. They talk about the Department embedding health inequalities in the emerging system, but they do not say how. The Government’s response states:

“Duties will be placed on the NHS Commissioning Board to reduce inequalities in access to outcomes from healthcare.”

That does not state how. That does not say what the targets will be. That does not say what the penalties will be if those duties are not met.

One of the most important points, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking spoke about, relates to GP shortages and the existence, still, of some single-handed GP practices, which are not the best. All the Government have to say on that is:

“The Government is committed to addressing these issues…following discussions with the BMA General Practitioners Committee.”

For anyone who knows Government and who knows the BMA General Practitioners Committee, that does not say very much at all. Again, I would like a little bit more detail on how the Government are going to battle with the BMA on that one.

No. 4 in the conclusions and recommendations section of the report states that

“GPs fail to focus their attention sufficiently on the more deprived people registered with their practices”—

and I would add, as an east end MP, those people who are not registered at all. Tuberculosis and malaria are big issues in the east end for populations who are largely not registered. I am not against more GP involvement in commissioning in principle, but one of my fears is that it would be all too easy for GPs to commission for the list. It would be disastrous for public health and health inequality to do that in the east end of London. For all sorts of reasons, we have large populations of people who are not on the list, not least because historically people in the east end would just rock up at Guy’s, Tommy’s or Bart’s and get treated—they did not bother to register. We therefore have to understand how, under the new system, the GP commissioners will be able—will be forced, actually—to commission for the population, and not the list.

I read what the Government have to say about making GPs focus more attention on deprived people. I have read it several times and I still do not understand, because if the GPs can make a decent living while not focusing on the most deprived people on their lists, which is what they have done hitherto, what is to make them change their habits?

Another concern is the numbers of PCTs. That will change with the reorganisation, but the fact is that areas with the highest deprivation still do not get the money due to them under the Department’s funding formula. We hear about the health premium, which sounds reassuring, but I know, from examining how the education premium will work in Hackney, that it will not leave us a penny better off. I would like to know how a health premium will help to get extra money to areas of high deprivation.

One issue of most concern is that when the PAC report states:

“The NHS spends 4% of its funding on prevention, although individual commissioners’ spending on prevention is not readily identifiable”,

the Government respond by stating:

“The Department does not believe it is for central Government to require Directors of Public Health to benchmark the costs and effectiveness of their public health activity—this will be a local responsibility.”

All that is well and good—in Hackney there some activist and committed GPs who came to Hackney because they are committed to fighting health inequality. I worry, however, that it will leave some of the most vulnerable members of our society entirely at the mercy of what their local authority thinks it is able to deliver in public health. I am very concerned about the unwillingness of the Government to benchmark costs and effectiveness and to find a way to promote the simple activities on blood pressure medication, cholesterol medication and smoking cessation.

In conclusion, the Government have said some encouraging things about public health in a general sense, but if there is one lesson to learn from the PAC report it is that having good intentions in a general sense, and even having wonderful policies in a general sense, is not the same as having targeted mechanisms to deliver improved public health outcomes for the very poorest. The Government set a lot of store by a more informed population going online, comparing statistics and choosing—the market, really. In the part of London that I come from, it is not reasonable to expect the poor, the elderly and the very young to universally have access to computers and, at a time of crisis and illness, to be comparing figures and doing sums on their laptop computers.

If the Government are serious about public health, they must first learn from the mistakes of the previous Government. Secondly, they simply cannot leave it to the vagaries of local authorities and the interests of local GP consortia to deliver the overall consistency in public health that will give us the narrowing of health inequalities that we want to see. I can stand on the top floor of my house in Hackney and see the towers of the City of London, but I might as well be in another country. It would be a tragedy if, despite the challenges that the Minister will no doubt tell us about, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world we cannot deliver the mechanisms to narrow that gap. That would be very sad indeed and I await with interest the Minister’s response to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. She is absolutely right to mention capacity building. There are areas where there is weakness across the board, and that is certainly something that we need to address. However, it is quite interesting what local areas can do with good leadership and the right levers and safeguards in place. I believe that it was out her way that I visited a scheme in an area with a high incidence of domestic violence. The local authority connected the council’s noise nuisance helpline and the domestic violence team, on the basis that where there is noise from neighbours there will probably be violence in the home. After a certain number of calls about a certain address, the domestic violence team is alerted and then goes in—a simple intervention, and a kind of capacity. Some of that is down to the confidence of the people working in the area, some of it is to do with expertise, and some of it—general practice has been mentioned quite a lot—involves putting in incentives to ensure that we get people with the skills that are needed to build that capacity.

I was not going to mention this, but we have made, for instance, a commitment to increasing radically the health visitor work force. One of the modules in health visitor training that we are looking at is about teaching new health visitors how to build capacity in communities. It is a nebulous thing, but it is important that we understand it. There is no doubt that communities, Governments and even empires have struggled for donkeys’ years with the question of how to improve public health. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned that in 1948, the NHS itself was a major public health advance. It secured health services for all, regardless of ability to pay. I make no apology for giving a history lesson. I am not a history scholar, but it is important to take on board the history of public health. At the same time, local authorities were given responsibilities for the health of children and mothers, and for the control of infections. At the same time, they retained their role in planning, sanitation and overseeing the health of their local population through medical officers of health.

In the NHS reforms of 1974, further unification of health services resulted in the transfer of some of those health functions from local government to the NHS, including many that we would recognise as public health functions. I draw Members back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington about the status of public health. One of the reasons why the medical profession at that time pulled public health out of local authorities was to do with status, and the clout that they felt they had. Clearly, if one looks at what we are doing now, that was probably a mistake, but there were issues to deal with. The Government have to be clear about how we want the public health profession to look.

That period coincided with advancing knowledge that allowed us to identify the causes of chronic disease and health inequalities. All of those things needed to be tackled as they became apparent. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) mentioned the Black report, which was published in 1980. It showed that although there had been a significant improvement in health across society, there was still a relationship between class and infant mortality, life expectancy and access to medical services. It is shocking that one could write the same thing today, 31 years on.

That report was followed by the first public health White Paper, “The Health of the Nation”, which recognised that there were considerable variations in health by area, ethnic group and occupation. A new public health agenda was set, and it provided a foundation for action over the past 30 years. There has been a great deal of work, with the best of intentions. I do not doubt the previous Government’s intentions. As I said in my opening remarks, it is important to have some humility and understand that the intent was there. However, we did not get the results that everyone wanted.

We need a new approach, and that is backed up by recent data from the London Health Observatory and from the Marmot review team, which show that although life expectancy is increasing in all socio-economic groups, it also reinforces inequalities. The data also show the variation in life expectancy at birth between men and women and between local authorities, and the pronounced inequalities even within local authority areas including, for example, Westminster, which has the widest within-area inequality gap, at just under 17 years for men: a man born in one part of the borough can conceivably expect to live almost two decades longer than his friend born a short distance away.

I do not apologise for using figures, because when we talk about health inequalities, people glaze over and are not terribly sure what it is about. They think it is something to do with obesity, smoking or something like that, but the figures tell the real story. The smallest inequality gap for men is in Wokingham in Berkshire, at less than three years, and for women the smallest gap is in Telford and Wrekin, at slightly less than two years—so we all know where to move. It is worth repeating that those are the smallest differences in the entire country, so even in the areas with the best outcomes, we are still talking about differences in years.

It stands to reason that a community in Lancashire, for example, might face different health problems from one in Hackney, where I used to work. The public health White Paper therefore sets out a new way of working. It gives a different flavour to how we view public health, looking at our lifecycles and highlighting the points where we can intervene to make a difference. It is a way of working that shifts power away from central Government and into the hands of communities.

We had a short discussion about devolving power, and it is a brave Government who devolve authority for something for which they will be held responsible in the end. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who said there has been a yo-yo between local devolution and centralised power; there has not. All Governments like to centralise things and keep control, because at the end of the day at a general election they will be blamed or otherwise for what has happened. It is quite brave to devolve power, but sometimes it is the right thing to do.

The new way of working will enable local areas to improve health throughout people’s lives, reduce inequalities and focus on the needs of the local population. The White Paper also underlines the priority we have given to tackling inequalities in supporting the principles of the Marmot review, which is important. The White Paper recognises the value of an approach that sees the importance of starting well, even before a child is born. Life chances are set well before someone pokes their head out into the world.

The new body, Public Health England, will have an important role. It will bring together what I suggest is a rather fragmented system and will span public health; it will improve the well-being of the population, targeting the poor in particular; and it will protect the public from health threats, which have not been mentioned, but they are an issue. There are inequalities in public health threats and, without a doubt, there are inequalities worldwide. Public Health England will need to work closely with the NHS, to ensure that health services continue to play a strong role and that NHS services play an increasingly large part in that mission. There has been a tendency for NHS services to see themselves simply as services to cure an immediate problem, rather than as part of a wider, more holistic approach to improving individuals’ health.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister spoke about enabling communities, which is one of those things that sound very nice. How could one disagree with it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking made a point about how social infrastructure in some communities has never been robust, but there is also a point about the social capital of some of those communities. Many of them are simply not socially homogenous. Representing Hackney, my fear is that enabling communities is all well and good, but it will enable the parts of the community with more social capital and confidence, who are generally noisier, at the expense of socially excluded groups.

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue. That is what has happened. On a more general point, cherry-picking is a problem. It is very easy to get certain people to lose a couple of stone—[Interruption.] Actually, sometimes it is quite hard to get them to lose a couple of stone and go down the gym. To be rather crass and non-specific, it is easier to get the middle classes to go to the gym and to eat a better diet.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that some areas are very disparate and disconnected. I am an optimist, and I believe that there is social capital. Central Government are very poor at delivering in local areas. I have worked in the most deprived part of the country and lived in the most affluent, and there is a world of difference. It is extraordinary to see—they could be different planets. Central Government is a clumsy tool to deliver something that is very difficult to bring about on the ground, so we must ensure that we have levers and build social capital.

I mentioned health visitors as an example, and a universal health visiting service is extremely important. When we think about hard-to-reach communities, we forget just how hard to reach they are. For some people, the only interaction they have with any health or social service is when they have their baby. Their kids might not go to nursery school or might frequently play truant from school, and they are extremely difficult to get hold of. To be honest, a universal health visiting service is probably the single most important measure we have announced, because it will get hold of those families who are so difficult to reach.

There has been talk of increased health funding. I will not deny that the previous Government put a significant amount of money into health, and I welcome the rather cross-party approach in this debate to acknowledging that that did not always produce returns, certainly not in public health. One problem was that the budget was not ring-fenced, but it will be ring-fenced now. I will return to some points made on ring-fencing and localism and the tension between them. It is important that local government be given the responsibility and freedoms to make a major impact on improving health, backed by ring-fenced budgets.

The right hon. Member for Barking gave an interesting example about the ineffectiveness of one-to-one smoking cessation programmes. More generally, she said that it is extraordinary that we do not drive or back up with evidence what we do in health, which to most people is a science-based discipline with science-based professions. I may have a higher opinion of local government than my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. I think that local government knows a lot about its local area and is often better at dealing with evidence than health services are.

The size of the ring-fenced grant will be important, because when the money was not ring-fenced it was an easy pot from which to pinch. The trouble is that the tabloid newspapers—I hesitate to mention one in particular—do not come out screaming about the poverty of the public’s health, although they come out screaming when services go. It was too easy to pinch the money, which is why it needs to be ring-fenced. It must also be based on relative population health need and weighted for inequalities, so that the areas with the greatest need will get the most.

Directors of public health will lead on action to address health inequalities. Public health physicians have done tremendous work. The public health observatories have done fantastic work, but they have tended to work in a cupboard and do not feel that they are getting their message across. Locating them in local authorities will bring together the threads that influence health, not only health care itself, but other determinants such as housing, transport, employment—the causes of the causes of poor public health, if you like.

There will be financial rewards for progress, and greater transparency so that people can see the results achieved. The new health premium will provide an incentive to reduce health inequalities and reward progress. That does not necessarily mean cherry-picking the easy cases. The programme will be designed to reward instances where progress has been made, and those places that have seen the greatest impact in areas with a poverty of outcomes in reducing inequalities. Almost by definition, those will be the areas where health inequalities are greatest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

I will give a politician’s answer and say that we are currently having a constructive dialogue with the BMA. I cannot give the details of that and I am not personally involved. However, it is important to get that matter right, and I am sure that details will emerge. The Health and Social Care Bill is currently in Committee, and some of the details about how the mechanisms will work have been considered during that process. The negotiations are ongoing, and we will let hon. Members know.

[Ms Abbott]

Everybody always has a constructive relationship with the BMA.

[Anne Milton]

I was not being ironic.

[Ms Abbott]

Neither am I. My point is that some parts of the GP profession may be resistant to hearing anything from a local authority director of public health because they might see that as local authority bureaucrats telling them what to do. There may be some parts of the GP profession that think they know what public health is. They think that it is about injecting people and about cash money per hundred. It must be clear in the contract negotiation that GPs are signed up to public health in the sense that we in this debate understand it, rather than in the way that some of them have historically understood it.

Maternity Services

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Lady is already falling into difficulties. She wants central Government to prescribe what works on the ground. If one looks at the proposals for GP pathfinder consortia, one sees that the proposed consortia vary in size enormously. That is because local people on the ground know what size of consortium will work for them. We will see more details emerging as the health Bill goes through Parliament and as the consortia get going. What matters is to be locally responsive. The hon. Lady mentioned accountability; having the right accountabilities in the system is important. What also matters is using the commissioners in particular to drive up quality.

Our focus on public health is also critical to maternal outcomes. Healthier women have healthier babies and for the first time we will ring-fence public health money. The hon. Lady was right to mention inequalities. Increased rates of stillbirth are associated with deprivation. I must say that, despite the previous Government having what was doubtless the best will in the world, during the 13 years that they were in power, health inequalities widened. I do not think that that was because they were utterly incompetent; it was partly because it is extremely difficult to do something about inequalities. However, I believe that our focus on public health and our ring-fencing of public health money will have a significant impact.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, although choice is very important, in a constituency such as mine, which is in the east end of London, public health issues, such as nutrition, access to advice and quite low-tech care during pregnancy are just as important to good maternal health outcomes? Underweight babies are one of the big problems in my constituency. They often have poor educational outcomes later, and cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds, because they have to be put in incubators and so on. That problem is to do with the sort of advice that those young mothers receive and it is a public health issue.

[Anne Milton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I think that we broadly agree on this issue. That is why we are focusing on public health. Preparation for pregnancy and having a healthy baby starts long before a woman gets pregnant. The education and support that women receive, the social networks that they are part of and improving the public’s health all matter. Nothing could be more important than improving the outcomes for women and, indeed, their babies.

Choice is important and it is also important that women can make informed choices; choices must be well informed to improve the outcomes for women and their babies. Furthermore, it is important that women have access to maternity services at an early stage in their pregnancy. In fact, ensuring such access is probably one of the most fundamental characteristics of high quality maternity care, which is why we have included the 12-week early access indicator as one of the measures for quality in the NHS operating framework for 2011-12.

Of course, it is also important that there are appropriate numbers of trained maternity professionals to provide the maternity service. The number of clinicians needed by mothers depends on several factors, ranging from the mother’s medical circumstances, to the complexity of the pregnancy, to wider societal factors, which can have a considerable impact.

Looking at the bigger picture, the birth rate must be considered when we are planning maternity services. Although the number of births in England has been rising since 2001, as I mentioned earlier, the birth rate peaked in 2008 and fell, by just less than 1%, in 2009 to about 671,000 live births. We are determined that staffing rates should be calculated purely on how many staff are needed to provide safe, quality care. We are considering ways to improve midwife retention and recruitment, and the planned number of midwives in training in 2010-11 is at a record level of about 2,500. Therefore we expect a sustained increase in the number of new midwives who will be available for maternity services during the next few years.

Complete and absolute focus on staffing numbers is totally ridiculous. If the birth rate shot up, 3,000 extra midwives would not be enough. Ensuring that the maternity work force has an effective skills mix is also an important consideration. I was recently in an extremely busy maternity unit, and the midwife there made it clear that what they needed was not more midwives but more support staff. Doubtless in other units there will be support workers in place, but not enough midwives. We want to focus on using the whole maternity team, including obstetricians, anaesthetists and support workers. It is not just the number of qualified midwives that is important, but their experience, and one issue that we need to address is attrition. A newly qualified midwife does not have the experience, nor perhaps the skills, to lead the team in a way that a midwife who has been in practice for 10 years or so can.

Umbilical Cord Blood

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I am pleased to have secured this vital debate. At first sight, a debate about umbilical cord blood might seem highly specialised and marginal in terms of its interest and application, but I hope that the debate that I have initiated will highlight the importance of the issue, and its wide application to the saving of lives and money. We have just completed the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, and this debate chimes with the Government’s policy of creating a modern health service that is open to innovation and excellence, providing life-saving treatments.

I described this as a vital debate. “Vital” is a word used commonly in the Chamber. In fact, a quick search of Hansard will reveal that it was used 2,997 times in 2010—that is, an average of about 20 times each sitting day. It has been used in connection with banking reform, the G20, libraries and ladybirds. While all those are no doubt crucial subjects and worthy of parliamentary attention, my use of the word “vital” in this debate relates to the number of people who, sadly, die each year from blood disorders and cancers without the vital resource of umbilical cord blood.

I introduced the issue of umbilical cord blood to the House on 8 January 2008 through a private Member’s Bill on the subject. A number of hon. Members approached me afterwards, in a state of ignorance to which they openly confessed, to ask what it was all about. Since then the issue has been raised on a number of occasions—notably the debates on the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008—and great progress has been made in raising parliamentary awareness of the benefits that these life-saving cords can provide for people suffering from tragic illnesses. In 2008 an all-party parliamentary group was established, and I see that its chair, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), is present. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the work of organisations such as the Anthony Nolan Trust, whose efforts have helped to keep the importance of cord blood at the forefront of the minds of many hon. Members, including Ministers.

I hope that tonight’s debate will remind Members of the value of this vital resource. Blood cancers are killers. According to Cancer Research UK, 4,000 new myeloma cases are diagnosed each year in Britain, and 2,500 myeloma sufferers die. There are 11,000 lymphoma diagnoses each year and 4,000 deaths; there are 7,000 leukaemia diagnoses each year and 4,000 deaths. For many sufferers, the only hope is a blood stem cell transplant. It may result from a bone marrow match, or from the taking of blood cells from the bloodstream of an adult donor or an umbilical cord donated by a mother after childbirth.

The procedure is complex, and there can be a range of complications that pose a threat to the patient. However, although it may seem awful that only 50% of blood transplant patients survive the treatment, almost none would survive without it. Blood stem cell transplants really are the last chance for people to whom no other treatment is available. For some of those people, a transplant is not just a treatment that saves their lives for a while, but an outright cure. At any given time, about 1,600 people in Britain are waiting for a matched donor for a transplant, hoping to survive long enough to get that chance.

Five-year-old Sorrel Mason was one such person. Three years ago Sorrel’s father noticed that she was looking pale, and she was eventually diagnosed with a rare strain of acute myeloid leukaemia. Her mother Samantha recalled the terrible fear and sense of helplessness that they felt at the time. She said:

“I remember the first time I saw her hooked up to all those machines. It broke my heart.”

After two doses of chemotherapy Sorrel was able to have a transplant, and received suitable stem cells from a mother’s umbilical cord from Tokyo—albeit an expensive imported cord; that is a point to which I shall return later. Thankfully, the procedure was a great success. In Samantha’s own words:

“Every day we waited for the daily blood counts. It was a miracle when eventually they came up okay.”

We are on relatively new ground here, because the first time a stem cell transplant took place using cells retrieved from a donated umbilical cord was in 1988. Since then, scientists have been discovering many advantages to the use of cord blood. You, Mr Speaker, will be relieved to know that I will refrain from reciting numerous tracts from the many academic papers on this subject. However, one especially noteworthy example of the great research work being carried out is the Cancer Research UK-funded trial being led by Dr Rachel Hough into the use of umbilical cord blood from unrelated donors for people who have cancer of the bone marrow or lymphatic system. Her team aims to investigate whether a transplant using cord blood cells can help cancer patients who cannot be matched to a bone marrow donor. This is an exciting and promising development that highlights the great potential for uncovering further benefits of cord blood.

The immediate benefit of a transplant from cord blood is that it achieves the same level of success for the patient at a significantly lesser degree of tissue matching. When I first raised this subject three years ago, we relied on speculation about the number of cord blood units needed for this country’s health needs. Now we know from evidence and with authority that a cord blood bank would have to maintain only 50,000 units to provide for the bulk of Britain’s unmet need for stem cells beyond the 770,000 registered adult donors. A great advantage of umbilical cords is the availability of the stem cells retrieved. They are collected, tissue-typed and frozen after the birth of the child, and then made available as soon as a patient requires them. That radically reduces the waiting time before a patient can access a transplant. Currently, the average time it takes for a patient to receive their transplant after the search for a match is started is some 160 days, during which time many patients become progressively weaker and the likely success of the transplant can thus be reduced.

Cord blood transplants save lives that other methods cannot, so it is no surprise that, globally, the proportion of transplants undertaken using cord blood is increasing every year. Great Ormond Street hospital, a leading transplant centre, will now use only cord blood where it is available. The pace of advance in this arena is excellent. Each year, the prognosis for patients treated is better than for those treated the year before, and that is because of the research taking place in the UK and around the world. Not only are blood cancers and similar disorders subject to increasingly effective treatments, but an active investigation is taking place into the use of cord blood in the treatment of sickle cell anaemia and HIV.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that minority ethnic patients make up almost 20% of the unmet need for stem cell transplants, which is disproportionate to our 10% representation in the population. Does he agree that one of the important uses of this blood is in enabling ethnic minority patients, who find it more difficult to get a match, to have some hope?

[Mr Burrowes]

I am very grateful for that intervention. The hon. Lady and I share an interest in both sickle cell anaemia and the thalassaemia issue. The UK Thalassaemia Society, whose headquarters are in my constituency, has great interest in this area and, in particular, in the black and minority ethnic communities, who are not able to get matches through the bone marrow register and are acutely in need. That is particularly the case for mixed-race families, who struggle to find any match and are sometimes wholly reliant on a cord blood solution. That is why it is welcome that over the years the previous Government and this Government have increased the number of collection centres to make more of those units available.

However, more needs to be done because, sadly, where Britain once led, it is now falling behind the United States, France, Germany and Spain. All those countries now outstrip our cord blood collection, inhibiting our research capacity. There are 700,000 births each year in the UK and in almost every single instance the cord blood is discarded as medical waste. I am not proposing routine collection, but we must question the health and economic value of throwing all these potentially life-saving cords away. I welcome the fact that the Government are nudging people to agree voluntarily to donate their organs upon death, and I would encourage a similar nudge in encouraging mothers to consider donating umbilical cord blood.

Progress has been made, but more needs to be done. There are 1,600 people waiting for a stem cell transplant, but the unmet need in annual terms is only 440 transplants per year. A bank of just 50,000 umbilical cords would provide the bulk of that need. Sadly, simply increasing the size of the adult register is not an alternative to having cord blood. We already have access to more than 16 million donors on registers worldwide. The work of the Anthony Nolan Trust and others helps us to access that adult register, but we would need a UK adult register of a similar size to approach the effectiveness of a 50,000-unit cord blood bank.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

Ambulance services will be commissioned through the GP consortia at the local level. What I envisage—this is not prescriptive from the Department of Health, but what I think will develop—is that, just as ambulance services are currently commissioned for geographical areas in England through one PCT, the consortia will appoint lead consortia to commission the services for that area.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with the representations of the Select Committee on Health, chaired by the hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), when it said that it was

“surprised by the change of approach between the Coalition Programme”

in May

“and the White Paper”

in July? The Committee continued:

“The White Paper proposes a disruptive reorganisation of the institutional structure of the NHS which was subject to little prior discussion and not foreshadowed in the Coalition Programme.”

If he cannot convince his hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, how is he going to convince the rest of us?

[Mr Burns]

Let me begin by congratulating my, in fact, right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood on the report that his Committee produced. The Government will give a full response to it in due course, as is usual. What I would tell the hon. Lady is that what happened in the Bill and the White Paper was what we and our coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, had outlined in our election manifestos, which—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that, but I suggest that they look at pages 45 to 47 of the Conservative manifesto, which probably very few of them have bothered to do. GP commissioning, along with “any willing provider” et al, are there, and if one looks at the Liberal Democrat one—[Interruption.]

Contaminated Blood

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on hepatitis C and HIV-infected blood.

What happened during the 1970s and 1980s, when thousands of patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from NHS blood and blood products, is one of the great tragedies of modern health care. It is desperately sad to recall that during this period the best efforts of the NHS to restore people to health actually consigned very many to a life of illness and hardship. As the current Health Secretary, and on behalf of Governments extending back to the 1970s, may I begin by saying how sorry I am that this happened and by expressing my deep regret for the pain and misery that many have suffered as a result?

It is now almost two decades since the full extent of the infection was established and two years since the independent inquiry led by Lord Archer of Sandwell reported. The majority of Lord Archer’s recommendations are in place, as are programmes of ex gratia payments, which are administered by the Macfarlane Trust and the Eileen Trust for the HIV-infected and by the Skipton Fund for those with hepatitis C. However, significant anomalies remain and I pay tribute to Lord Archer, to other noble Lords and to hon. Members in this place from all parties for highlighting them.

In October, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), announced a review into the current support arrangements —to look at reducing the differences between the hepatitis C and HIV financial support schemes and to explore other issues raised by Members during the recent Back-Bench debate, including prescription charges and wider support for those affected. We also asked clinical experts to advise on the impact of hepatitis C infection on a person’s health and quality of life and to consider whether an increase in financial support was needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has met representative groups to understand the impact that these infections were having on people’s lives and has also met many Members of both Houses who have been strong advocates on behalf of those affected.

We have now considered the findings of the clinical expert group and we accept that the needs of those with advanced liver disease from hepatitis C merit higher levels of support. At present, the amount of money paid to this group depends on the seriousness of the infection. There are two stages at which the Skipton Fund will make a payment, the first of which is when the person develops chronic hepatitis C infection. At this point, a person is eligible for a stage 1 relief payment—currently a lump sum of £20,000. Some may reach a second stage of developing an advanced liver disease such as cirrhosis or cancer, or of requiring a liver transplant; they then become eligible for a stage 2 payment, which is currently another lump sum of £25,000. Under new arrangements that we will introduce, this second stage payment will increase from £25,000 to £50,000. This will apply retrospectively, so that if a person has already received an initial stage 2 payment of £25,000, they will now get another £25,000 lump sum, bringing the total to £50,000.

In addition, we will also introduce a new, annual payment of £12,800 for those with hepatitis C who reach this second stage. This is the same amount as those who were infected with HIV receive. Those infected with both HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood will now receive two annual payments of £12,800 if they meet the stage 2 criteria—one payment for each infection—along with the respective lump sums. All annual payments that are made, both to those so infected with HIV and to those with hepatitis C, will now be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index to keep pace with living costs.

We know that some of those infected with HIV or hepatitis C from NHS blood and blood products face particular hardship and poverty. Those infected with HIV can already apply for additional discretionary payments from the Eileen Trust and the Macfarlane Trust, but no equivalent arrangements are in place for those infected with hepatitis C, so we will now establish a new charitable trust to make similar payments to those with hepatitis C who are in serious financial need. These payments will be available for those at all stages of their illness, based on individual circumstances. Discretionary payments will also be available to support the dependants of those infected with hepatitis C, including the dependants of those who have since died. Again, this will echo the arrangements in place for those infected with HIV and will enable us to give more to those in the greatest need.

We must also ensure that those infected through NHS blood and blood products get the right medical and psychological support. I can therefore announce two further measures. First, those infected with hepatitis C or HIV will no longer pay for their prescriptions. They will now receive the cost of an annual prescription prepayment certificate if they are currently charged for prescriptions. Secondly, the representative groups raised the issue of counselling support for those infected through blood and blood products. We fully recognise the emotional distress that they have experienced. As a result, we will provide £300,000 over the next three years to allow for around 6,000 hours of counselling to help those groups.

While we focus on those still living with infections, we must also recognise the bereaved families of those who have died. At present, no payment can be made to those infected with hepatitis C who passed away before the Skipton Fund was established. That is a source of understandable distress to those who survive them, and that is something that we now want to put right. I can therefore announce that, until the end of March 2011, there will be a window of opportunity in which a posthumous claim of up to £70,000 can be made on behalf of those infected with hepatitis C who died before 29 August 2003. A single payment of £20,000 will be payable if the individual had reached the first stage of chronic infection. Another single payment of £50,000 will be made if their condition had deteriorated to the second stage, in which they suffered serious liver disease or required a liver transplant. We will work with the Skipton Fund and various patient groups to publicise this new payment to those who may benefit. Those new payments, which will go to the individual’s estate, should help more families to get the support that they deserve.

Taken together, these announcements represent a significant rise in the support available to those affected by this tragedy. Putting an exact figure on the package is difficult, as there is some uncertainty about how many people will be eligible, and how their illnesses may progress. However, we believe that the new arrangements could provide £100 million to £130 million-worth of additional support over the course of this Parliament. All payments will be disregarded for calculating income tax and eligibility for other state benefits, including social care. Although the changes apply only to those infected in England, I will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to see whether we can extend the measures across the United Kingdom.

Today’s announcements cannot remove the pain and distress that individuals and families have suffered over the years, but I hope that the measures can at least bring some comfort, some consolation, and perhaps even some closure to those affected. I commend the statement to the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome the review and today’s statement, and we note that Labour Health Ministers had agreed the review in principle before they left office. We are glad that the statement was made on the very first day back after the Christmas break, because we are aware that the statement was promised before Christmas. We appreciate it being made as soon as it could be made.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the House owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the patient groups that have campaigned for more than 25 years on the issue? They include the Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust, the Taintedblood group, the Manor House Group, and individuals such as Haydn Lewis, who unfortunately passed away before he could see this resolution. Without the campaigning of those groups and individuals over two decades, the issue would have been one of private misery and private suffering. It is because they campaigned and kept the issue before the public and before the eyes of politicians that we are able to move decisively towards a proper resolution today.

Many of the measures in the statement will be welcomed, particularly the help with prescription charges and the £300,000 for counselling—I have seen with my own eyes the awful mental effect of this tragedy on people—as well as the payments for dependants, the provision for posthumous claims, and above all, the move towards parity in the cases of HIV and hepatitis C. All that will be welcomed, but there will still be campaigners who will regret that we have not been able to achieve parity with the compensation that was offered and handed out in the Republic of Ireland. It would be silly to pretend that there will not be many people still saying today, “Why could we not achieve what was done in the Republic of Ireland?”.

Finally, when we remember that more than 4,500 completely innocent and trusting patients contracted HIV, hepatitis C or both as a consequence of tainted blood, and that more than 1,900 of those people have died, leaving thousands of dependants behind, should we not, as a House, resolve that it should never again take 25 years for perfectly innocent victims of errors and mistakes to have proper justice and recompense?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I entirely endorse her opening and closing remarks paying tribute to all the patient groups. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has met many of those groups and individuals, and I know that she would heartily endorse what the hon. Lady said about how they have brought these issues time and again to the forefront of attention in the House and the other place. I do not want to underestimate the many in the House and the other place who responded to that and did so very well by bringing these cases forward. I hope that they will see in today’s statement a proper response.

We do not know whether there will ever be a similar case. I hope we can avoid it—it would be much better to avoid it—but if we were ever in a situation where such a consequence flowed from the NHS seeking to do its best to treat patients but such harm nevertheless occurred, I hope we would recognise that, be able to identify it and not allow decades to pass before proper recognition took place.

That brings me to the hon. Lady’s substantive point, which is the relationship between what we are doing and the compensation provided in the Republic of Ireland. As we explained in October, we do not regard these as comparable cases. In the Republic of Ireland, mistakes were made by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service which led to a recognition of liability, leading to a determination of compensation. In this country we are not providing compensation. We are recognising the harm that occurred, notwithstanding the fact that the NHS at the time sought to provide the treatment that it thought was in the best interests of patients.

That harm occurred. As an ex gratia payment and in recognition of the harm that occurred and the distress that followed, we have sought to ensure that there is proper support, financial and otherwise, for the victims and their families. I hope that by getting rid of the anomalies and recognising—in particular, through the work of the clinical expert group—the impact on those with hepatitis C, we are giving the support that those who were damaged should expect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to indicate that the matter has not been dealt with thoroughly for many years, and that is why the Government have launched the review. Obviously I cannot pre-empt its outcomes, but we will bring it to the House as soon as we can.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that no past Government have anything to be proud of in the way in which the matter was dealt with, and that Members on both sides of the House have campaigned on the issue. People hope that the Government will be able to live up to the promise in the October debate of producing a review before Christmas. Thousands of sufferers of HIV and hepatitis C, and thousands of dependants, are waiting for the announcement.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Lady makes some very important points. As she rightly says, the matter was debated in the House only recently, and the Government are determined to ensure that we are in a position to report back on the review before Christmas.

HIV

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate on world AIDS day, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing the debate.

Let us remember that some people who are suffering from HIV/AIDS, or suspect that they are, will have supportive partners, be in supportive communities and face the future with some positivity. Many, however, will be very frightened and very alone. It is a good thing that we in this Chamber can openly debate this issue and its ramifications, because it will reassure not just communities, activists and lobbyists but individuals who may read and see the debate this afternoon.

We must remember that we have moved some way since the early frightening adverts in the 1980s. No one who saw those adverts, with the tombstones collapsing and the voice of doom, has ever forgotten them. We should congratulate Norman Fowler on taking up the cause and using the power of his Department to put it in front of the public.

When we look at some of the indices around HIV/AIDS, we see that there has been an increase in HIV testing among gay men. Testing rose from 58% in 1997 to 72% in 2008. We have seen a plateau in new diagnoses among gay men, and we now see a consistently high rate of condom use among them—at least nine out of 10 now use condoms. The fact that we have seen such progress is partly a tribute to the people who took up the issue all those years ago. It is also a continuing tribute to the communities, activists and health providers who provide both care and commitment, and we need to acknowledge that today in this debate.

However, there is still some way to go. How we go forward on HIV/AIDS will be a test of the reorganisation of both the NHS and public health that has been announced in recent months. In principle, I do not think that anyone in this Chamber is opposed to the reorganisation, but it is just this sort of issue, which is not consistent across the country, that is not necessarily well represented in GPs’ lists and has different levels of information across the country; there may not be as much information in rural areas as there is in Brighton and London. That will be a test of the reorganisation’s effectiveness.

We know that AIDS can affect anyone, and that apart from the gay community the largest community affected by HIV/AIDS is that made up of black African men and women; currently, 38% of new HIV diagnosis is among that group. The stigma attached to HIV in that community cannot be overstated, and it very much hampers efforts to reach out to people and achieve early diagnosis.

The problem among black African men and women—and among other groups, as well—is that they present late and are therefore diagnosed late. That not only gives them a poor prognosis; it means that the cost of treatment is much more expensive than it need be. That is true of any individual or any group that presents late.

Another issue with black African men is that, even though they may be having sex with men, they refuse to consider themselves as gay. They think that HIV is something for the gay community and not for them, so they end up presenting very late indeed. They are more likely to be undiagnosed and to live in areas in which a relatively high proportion of the population are not on their GP’s list, so they are not really interacting with the authorities.

I should like to use this debate to stress the importance of educational and informative work generally and with the black and African community in particular. We must do more with the Churches, because that is probably the most effective way to reach those groups. Any Sunday morning, there will more people in African-led churches in Hackney than at any political party meetings for 12 months of the year.

We need to normalise testing and offer it in a much wider range of settings—not just for black and African men and women, but for the population as a whole. I was routinely tested when I had my son 19 years ago and thought nothing of it. We need to make testing more routine so that people do not think, “If I go for this test, it will badge me as someone at risk.” Universal testing may well be a step too far, but we need to make testing available in a wider range of contexts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said that he did not want to talk about international issues, but given that 38% of new HIV diagnosis is among black African men and women, I do not apologise for raising the issue of funds for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I know that that is not a matter for the Minister and I do not expect her to respond on the specific point. None the less, will she pass on to her colleagues the very concerning fact that the global fund is £13 billion short of what it needs? If the UK was to raise its pledged amount in line with France and other western European countries, the fund would be able to go to private sector donors such as the Gates Foundation and reach the amount of money it needs.

In that context, I should like to mention—again, I do not expect the Minister to respond on this point—that in the next few weeks we will have EU trade talks with India in Brussels. There is a great concern that as a consequence of the trade talks, India might not be able to produce the cheap generic drugs that have played such a huge role in the fight against AIDS in Africa. That would be a blow not so much for Indian industry, but for the millions of people in Africa who have benefited from access to cheap generic drugs.

HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence, which is good news. Thanks to new drugs, research and greater understanding, people are now living with HIV. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, we have 65,390 people in the community living with HIV. In fact, it is increasing faster among the over-50s than among any other group, which raises new issues that were not considered in the era of the adverts with the crashing tombstones and the voice from above.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned the issue of depression and how that interconnects with sufferers of HIV/AIDS and the support that they need in relation to that. There are ongoing concerns about care and support that were not an issue 20 years ago. If we are to offer sufferers from HIV/AIDS equity of health care and, as far as possible, a good quality of life, we must consider care and support, within the new health service and local authority structures, as we have not in the past.

As I said at the start of my remarks, the reorganisation of the commissioning of health care and of the public health service will be tested by this issue. Many ordinary people on the ground will judge the reorganisation by how issues such as this are dealt with. I stress, as my hon. Friends have stressed, the importance of a national strategy. We need to consider how it can go forward under the new arrangements. Will the Minister tell us who will be responsible for commissioning and funding the information work that is needed now more than ever—in particular, the specific education work that goes into the communities that I have mentioned? Who will be responsible for commissioning preventive work, care, treatment and support? I will listen with interest to the Minister’s responses to those questions.

I welcome the new public health arrangements in principle. Public health has been a core activity of local government since the 19th century and so, as a former local councillor, I am glad that public health has “come home” to local authorities. However, because I know local authorities and how they work, I want to be convinced that it is possible effectively to ring-fence the public health funds that they will receive.

I imagine that what some local authorities will do—or will be tempted to do, conceiving themselves to be under financial pressure—is to rebadge existing work in the areas of social care and environmental health as public health expenditure, and the new funds that all of us in Westminster Hall imagine are there for public health will melt away in the current climate. So this will be a test, as much as anything else, of how far it is possible effectively to ring-fence public health funds once they fall to local authorities.

Then there is GP commissioning, and the issue of HIV/AIDS will be a test of that system. The important thing with GP commissioning is that GPs should commission for their community and not for their list. As an east end Member of Parliament, I know that there are many public health issues that manifest themselves more extensively among people who are not actually on GPs’ lists, for a whole number of reasons. Tuberculosis is a case in point. A disproportionately high number of people who suffer from TB are not on a GP’s list, for a number of reasons. HIV will be a test of the extent to which GP commissioning consortiums will commission for the community as a whole and not just for the people who are on GPs’ lists and present themselves for treatment.

It will be important to know what will happen to some of the survey work that is carried out by organisations such as the London Health Observatory; I had a meeting with representatives of that organisation this morning. That survey work is the only way of seeing what the trends are in issues such as HIV. It is easy for us to say this afternoon that 43% of HIV/AIDS sufferers are in London, many more are in Brighton and so on. However, we live in a globalised environment and there are trends and changes. Only survey work—not only national survey work, but sometimes precise survey work—can track what is really happening with HIV/AIDS.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand that some of the figures that have been released in the past year for those who have just been diagnosed with HIV show that it is not just a young person’s disease any more; it also affects those who are 50-plus or 55-plus. I wonder whether the hon. Lady is aware of that. If she is, what does she feel should be done to address that issue of those in an older age bracket who are now succumbing to the disease?

[Ms Abbott]

That is an important point, and it is one that I touched on earlier. It shows that anyone can find themselves—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Ms Abbott]

In conclusion, I congratulate all those who have campaigned, worked and raised consciousness on this issue over 20-odd years. Improvements have been made, partly through the efforts of communities and campaigners and partly through the commitment of people in the House, but we face new challenges due to the reorganisation of the NHS and the fact that a generation of people are now living with AIDS.

I look to the Minister to answer some of the questions asked in this debate, particularly about how the reorganisation will affect the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and to reassure us that the information needed in a range of communities will be publicised. I will listen with interest to her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hove also mentioned the specific problems with late diagnosis, which I shall return to. The outlook for most people with HIV in the UK is more positive than it used to be, and the vast majority can now plan for their future with a great deal more certainty, which is to be welcomed. We must not forget that we have the dedicated work of many scientists around the world to thank for that, along with action from Governments from both sides of the House.

However, challenges remain. As Members have pointed out, despite our successes, a quarter of people with HIV do not know that they are infected and so are unable to benefit from the treatment available, and they can unwittingly infect others. Around half of the newly diagnosed infections are diagnosed late, after the point at which people should have started treatment. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) raised that as an ongoing and growing problem, along with the fact that many of the people affected have serious mental health problems. The mental health and well-being of people with HIV and AIDS is seldom mentioned, but it is extremely important to recognise.

I share the concerns raised in the debate about the need to reduce the number of people with HIV who are undiagnosed or diagnosed late. We need to increase testing, especially in those areas that have a higher prevalence of HIV. We have seen a good uptake of HIV testing in sexual health clinics and antenatal settings, but all health care professionals need to be alert to the importance of offering appropriate HIV tests.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the Minister have any practical proposals for increasing testing, such as different contexts in which it can occur?

[Anne Milton]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point, which is important. I will return to it later in my remarks. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) mentioned the automatic testing when she had her baby. The Department of Health has funded eight pilot projects, which have now been completed, that looked at the feasibility and, importantly, acceptability of providing an HIV test as part of routine services offered to newly registered adults. I am encouraged by the findings from those projects, which confirm that offering HIV tests in GP practices, hospitals and community settings is acceptable to patients.

The pilots picked up a significant number of previously undiagnosed people in high prevalence areas. It is good news that people are happy to be tested, because it means that we can pick up cases of HIV that would otherwise be missed. We are working on the best approaches to expand HIV testing in a variety of settings and, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, that is really important. If a wide variety of settings was available, a GP practice is not necessarily where people would go for a test—far from it, I would say.

I am also pleased to note that, thanks to the leadership and drive of local HIV clinicians and others, findings from the pilots in Brighton, Lewisham and Leicester have now been embedded in local practice, which is to be congratulated. The Health Protection Agency will publish its final report on the pilots early next year, which many people will look forward to seeing. We need to see what we can do to put into practice what we have learnt. It is vital to increase testing for HIV, as it is for a number of sexually transmitted diseases, so we continue to fund targeted programmes for the groups most at risk from HIV in the UK. We have also funded the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health to provide training resources for health care professionals in secondary care.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who kindly sent me a note to explain that he has had to leave the debate, for raising the work of Summit House Support. We will be looking at the findings of the pilots I have mentioned, and I would certainly not like to miss an opportunity to go to Dudley, should the opportunity arise, to have a look at what Summit House Support is doing.

For HIV, as for all STIs, prevention remains the most important response. In the UK, the majority of HIV infections are sexually transmitted, and the vast majority of those could have been prevented; that is a message that we really must hang on to.

NHS Reorganisation

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

This is a period of great challenge for the national health service, and it would be whoever was in government. However, Government Members accused us of not having a care for staff and patients. In fact, it is precisely because we are concerned about staff and patients that we are using this debate to point to all that is problematic—and potentially even disastrous—about the Secretary of State’s proposed NHS reorganisation.

In exploring the gap between what those in government said while in opposition and what they are saying now, we can do no better than refer to a speech that the present Prime Minister gave to the King’s Fund in 2006, in which he set out the five key components of his approach to the NHS—components that, to my knowledge, he has not altered. His first component was that he wanted to guarantee the NHS the money that it needs. Who believes that now? Certainly not the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has noted that not since the 1950s—from April 1951 to March 1956, to be precise—has there been such a small increase in NHS funding; and not the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, who said:

“A huge range of services and jobs are earmarked for cuts against this urban myth that the NHS is being protected. The evidence is quite clear…this is simply not the case”.

Hon. Members, who, as the weeks turn to months, will see the cuts in their own constituencies, will not believe it either.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about what is happening to children’s hospitals. What has not been factored in is the cost of reorganisation, which experts have said will be £3 billion. Ministers have said that their estimate is £1.7 billion, but when asked about the number of redundancies they cannot answer. We know that the cost—

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Abbott]

No, I must get on.

The cost of redundancies, when they are factored in, will be hundreds of thousands of pounds. We believe that the figure of £1.7 billion will be overshot, and bring greater financial pressure on the NHS.

The second point that the Prime Minister made in 2006 was that he wanted to end the damage caused by pointless and disruptive reorganisation of the NHS. He said:

“We will not mess around with existing local and regional structures”.

So the Secretary of State’s big idea for the NHS was a pointless and disruptive reorganisation.

What do the people who work in the NHS think about that? The Royal College of General Practitioners says:

“our members are not convinced that the scale of the changes proposed is justifiable, especially in the context of cost reductions”.

The British Medical Association

“questions whether a less disruptive, more cost-effective process could have achieved the aims of reducing bureaucracy”.

The Royal College of Midwives says that it is

“very disappointed that despite pre-election promises to end…top-down reorganisation…the White Paper focuses far more on structures than it does on care delivery.”

The reorganisation is high-cost, high-risk and contrary to everything that was said by those who are now Ministers in the run-up to the election. They have accused us of being confused and incoherent, but it is their reorganisation that is confused and incoherent. Every professional body echoes that thought.

The Prime Minister said that he wanted to

“work with the grain of the Government’s reforms…So we will go further in increasing the power and independence of GPs and PCTs”.

He has gone so far that he has left GPs behind, and only one in four believe that the reorganisation will improve patient care. As for PCTs, contrary to the Government’s promises when in Opposition, they have abolished them.

What was the Prime Minister’s fourth point about his main driving aims for the NHS? He said that he wanted to

“take the politics out of the management of the NHS”.

There could not be a more political reorganisation. It is driven by ideology and a belief in free market ideology. As the chair of the BMA, Hamish Meldrum, said:

“If the Government is truly committed to reducing waste and inefficiency, their proposals for NHS reform should focus less on competition and more on a co-operative approach on delivering health care.”

Finally in his 2006 speech the Prime Minister said that his main commitment on the NHS was

“fair funding to the NHS…We will end political meddling…removing the scope for fiddling”.

We will see how much the scope for fiddling is removed when money is moved from the NHS budget to local authorities for social care.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) all expanded on what is problematic about the reorganisation. The Secretary of State began by posing as the friend of patients and those who work in the NHS. I will not take lectures from him on that. My mother came to this country as a pupil nurse from Jamaica in the 1950s. She was part of that generation of West Indian women who helped to build the national health service. Government Members cannot talk to us about the people who work in the NHS. As for patients, are Ministers listening to the patient groups—people who represent children, people who represent the elderly, and people who represent those with mental health problems—about their concern about what the reorganisation will mean for them?

This reorganisation is ill thought out and, at a time of tremendous financial stress in the national health service, ill timed. We believe that Government Members have been lulled into a false sense of security about what is to come. They believe that although students might be marching and the Church might be in uproar, the NHS is safe. I put it to them that, as the weeks turn to months and we move through the winter, and as we begin to see winter bed pressures, the consequences of this ill-thought-out, unnecessary, top-down reorganisation will reverberate not only in this Chamber but in the surgeries of Government Members and of all Members of this House. I am proud to support the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

The Government certainly work closely with the voluntary sector in many ways to promote and develop our approach to cancer services. We value the work of organisations such as York Against Cancer because of the support that they provide through information and support for people diagnosed with cancer and their families. It is very important that we continue to support such activities.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that cancer survival outcomes are very closely linked to poverty and inequality? Although I concede that inequality widened under the previous Government, how can the present Government hope to bear down on poverty and inequality in the context of an overall policy framework that envisages a steep rise in unemployment, with all the poor health outcomes associated with that, and a commitment to protecting health spending, which is unravelling by the day?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and particularly her acknowledgement of the previous Government’s failure to close the health inequality gap. The Office for Budget Responsibility identified that there will be growth in employment during the spending review period, and this Government are determined to make sure that we see that growth take place. When it comes to cancer survival, what we need to do most, and most importantly, is make sure that people are aware of the signs and symptoms of cancer, because if they are, they present earlier, they get a diagnosis earlier and their survival chances are greatly improved.