Antibiotic Resistance

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend is right. I was going to touch on that. Multi-resistance is widespread around the world. He mentions antimalarials, but resistance is also apparent in relation to tuberculosis and there is emerging resistance to the antibiotics of last resort—the so called super antibiotics—the carbapenems, which are not licensed for use in farm animals on the veterinary side. That resistance is causing real concern.

Returning to the livestock sector for a minute, there is a tendency among some sections of the intensive livestock industry, and even some Governments, to dismiss almost entirely the contribution to resistance by veterinary use of antibiotics. This is a dangerous path to take, because although antibiotic use in farm animals may not be the main driver of resistance in humans, it is a still an important contributor, and we must recognise that.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves away from the agricultural sector, let me say that, in a long previous life as a livestock farmer, one of my earliest experiences was of the most amazingly casual approach to the use of antibiotics. If we are going to change the mindset in the agricultural industry, we have to bring on board the unions that advise farmers and get the people running agriculture onside in recognising the danger of this, because an awful lot of individual operators just do not accept the dangers and risks.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I said earlier that we must tackle misuse in the livestock sector, as well as misuse in human medicine; we must tackle misuse across the world. Regarding food security and imported food, antibiotics are misused throughout the world in the livestock sector.

It is worth putting on the record that in the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, but we do not misuse antibiotics to any extent in the food chain, as is seen in the US. Such misuse has to be stopped and action has to be taken on that.

For far too long antibiotics have been used as if they were a bottomless pit of cure-all miracle treatments. Some 30 years ago, the battle against infectious diseases appeared to have been won, at least in the developed world. The old drugs could handle whatever bugs came along, which meant there was no market for new ones. That is why, since the year 2000, just five new classes of antibiotics have been discovered, and most of these are ineffective against the increasingly significant problem posed by gram-negative bacteria, which are also difficult to detect. The fact is that misuse, over-prescription and poor diagnostics have driven an environment that favours the proliferation of resistant strains of bacteria, rendering once vital medicines obsolete.

Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May I first place on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the other sponsors of this debate for securing the time from the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that the House can discuss such an important issue? I also hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) will get well soon: she should have been closing this debate on behalf of the Opposition, but unfortunately she is not well today. Some people have greatness thrust upon them and I have had to do two Back-Bench business debates this afternoon.

I also thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions throughout the 90 minutes that we have had to discuss this very important issue. We have had no fewer than 19 Back-Bench contributions, which have all been of incredible quality. The impassioned and thoughtful considerations we have heard are a testament to what a sensitive and complex matter this is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said, it is important that we have this debate, wherever one comes from and wherever one arrives at, and that the House of Commons discusses these issues.

On the one hand, we have celebrated the triumph of science that these new techniques represent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) have said, it is thanks to years of pioneering research at the university of Newcastle into how we can prevent the transmission of genetic mutations that we are finally reaching the point at which we can consider using these transformative techniques in humans. We have within our reach the possibility of eradicating mitochondrial disease from families who have been blighted by it for generations—families who have endured a disease for which there is no cure, who have suffered daily battles with painfully debilitating symptoms and who have lost their children prematurely.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who remain uncertain about the proposals share the exact same concern as those who support them about those who suffer from mitochondrial disease? That should never be forgotten: the concern of those of us who are uncertain about the proposals is every bit as great.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely agree. I have to say that I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), but he made the very important point—one of many in his speech—that whether people are coming from a scientific perspective or a religious one, their views are equally important in this debate. I am very glad that both sides of this debate have been able to air their views.

Of course, families have had to face up to the risk—perhaps the certainty—that to be a parent will come at the expense of a difficult and, in too many cases, painful life for their children. On the other hand, we have grappled with the undoubted ethical and moral questions raised by the proposed introduction of such techniques. Some hon. Members have shared their anxiety about the uncharted territory we are now in, but that has been good for the public debate. Indeed, the proposed regulations would make Britain the first country to legalise mitochondrial transfer, and scientists have acknowledged that there will always have to be a leap of faith when the technique is first used.

It is important that all these arguments are debated at length and given full and proper consideration, but it is also critical for the integrity of the eventual decision that the debate should be based on the facts. When debating such matters, we will naturally hear a number of contradictory assertions. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House about some of those issues we have discussed.

The first concern raised is that the process has been rushed through. Anybody involved in the development of the techniques would disagree that this has moved quickly. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) pointed out that the consultation on the process began in 2003. It was more than six years ago—back in 2008—that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was amended to introduce powers to allow regulations to be brought forward to enable mitochondria replacement to take place. It was back in 2010 that researchers at the university of Newcastle developed the techniques to avoid diseased mitochondria being passed from a mother to her children, and it was not until after another three years of consultation and review processes that the Government announced in July that they would introduce regulations to enable mitochondrial donation techniques to be used. As we have heard, expert scientific review panels in April 2011, March 2013 and June 2014 found no evidence to suggest that the techniques are unsafe for clinical use.

If Parliament passes the regulations, specialist clinicians will have to obtain a licence from the HFEA to use the techniques. A licence will be granted only once the HFEA, operating case by case, is satisfied that any risk of using the techniques is low. I hope that the Minister will provide the House with more detail on the robust process that has been followed for us to reach this point. I ask her to set out the further safeguards built into the regulations to guarantee that the decision to use these techniques cannot be taken lightly.

We have heard concerns that allowing mitochondrial donation is a dangerous road to start down, and might lead to designer babies and parents being able to select the physical characteristics of their children, which I would find absolutely abhorrent. However, we have also heard that those fears do not take into account that the regulations are very specific and cover only mitochondrial DNA, not the nuclear DNA that determines our physical characteristics, as was so eloquently outlined by the right hon. Member for Havant. We are talking about the use of these techniques only in the clearly defined situation of incurable mitochondrial disorders.

The fact that the techniques apply only to the mitochondrial DNA and not to nuclear DNA should provide further reassurance to hon. Members who are concerned that the process will result in three-parent babies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras said. As we have heard, mitochondrial DNA controls only mitochondrial function and energy production; it is important to point out, as many hon. Members have done, that nuclear DNA, which makes us who we are and determines appearance and personality, is not altered by the proposed techniques. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics conducted an ethical review, which concluded that by “societal norms”, mitochondrial DNA

“does not confer genetic identity.”

Again, it would be helpful if the Minister put it on the record that children who are born from mitochondrial donation will have two biological parents and one mitochondria donor.

Finally, I come to the issue of safety. There have been questions about the safety of the techniques. Again, we must be sure that we base our arguments on facts. Comparisons have been made with the cytoplasmic transfer techniques that were used by a private fertility clinic in the United States in 2002 and the current investigation into the health of the children born from that process. However, this is a fundamentally different technique, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) suggested.

There are other safety concerns that apply directly to mitochondrial donation techniques, and those must be examined in detail. As we have heard, the technique has received unprecedented scrutiny by the HFEA’s specially convened expert scientific review panel. The question for us is whether the benefits of preventing the transmission of mitochondrial disease and the likelihood that children will continue to be born who will die in infancy outweigh the risks of the techniques. The scientific community and the families experiencing mitochondrial disease say that they do. It is now up to Parliament to decide whether it agrees.

We are approaching the final stage in what has been a long and considered process, and we cannot delay it any further. Time is precious for the parents who are at risk of passing on mitochondrial inherited disease to their children. The research has been done, the reviews have been carried out, and the experts and the public have been consulted. The arguments have been made and the families are waiting. It is time for us to make a decision.

Organ Transplants

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am sorry that I did not give you prior notice that I wanted to speak, Mrs Osborne. Although this is an important issue to me, I did not realise that it was on the agenda and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on introducing the debate. I agreed with a substantial part of his speech, although not all of it. I will come to that point later.

Organ donation and transplantation is one of the most important developments in modern medical science, enabling treatment of patients with failing and damaged organs. Huge advances in transplant surgery and immunosuppression have enabled great advances to be made. Hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs, pancreases, and other organs, are successfully transplanted, but the demand continues to grow. Medical science is enabling more transplantation and we are living longer, but still about 500 people die every year while waiting. We always have to be looking for ways of increasing the levels of donation and transplantation.

My interest in the subject stems from a friend of mine receiving one of the early heart and lung transplants at Papworth, probably about 25 years ago. It was phenomenal at the time, but since then it has become much more common and is more accepted. I have had an interest since that time and that has developed in terms of promoting support for those suffering from kidney disease in my constituency, for example, with the development of a dialysis unit, and it continues here. I am also a trustee of Kidney Foundation Wales, a wonderful organisation promoting transplantation in Wales, although I disagree with it about presumed consent. I have always been disappointed in that regard and somehow feel isolated, because all the other trustees of Kidney Foundation Wales favour a change to presumed consent, which is now a new Welsh law. However, I am implacably opposed to it, because I just do not believe it will work. I will come to that point later, as one of the two points that I want to make today.

We all want to increase the level of organ donation—that is, all those in favour of presumed consent and all those in favour of continuing with informed consent. Providing new life to a fellow citizen is undoubtedly the greatest gift that any of us can give. I have spoken on this issue several times before, but there are two new issues to consider that I want to mention.

First, I emphasise how much amazing success we have had in promoting organ donation. We all owe a debt to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who established the organ donation taskforce—in 2005, I think—under the chairmanship of Elisabeth Buggins, an outstanding leader in this debate. That taskforce produced a report in 2008, with a target of increasing organ donation by 50% over five years. That target was met last year. However, it does not stop there. The latest figures show that, after six years, there has been a 63% increase, and it is still rising. We have seen a phenomenal increase as a result of the organ donation taskforce’s recommendations, which did not include presumed consent; in fact, it said that that was not a recommendation. It recommended an increase in the number of intensive care beds and specialist nurses, copying what had happened in Spain, which had delivered great success there in increasing organ donation. It is important to recognise that we can continue to build on the great success that we have achieved.

Secondly, I am disappointed that the British Medical Association takes a different view from me, supporting the introduction of presumed consent. However, it decided to do that on the basis of a show of hands at a conference meeting, and it was the quality of the speakers in the debate that led to that decision. Its decision was not based on a comprehensive report, like that of the organ donation taskforce; it was just a show of hands.

The point that I really wanted to make in contributing to this debate, because it is important and supports my view that no self-respecting surgeon would remove a patient’s organs without the support of their next of kin, is that the Royal College of Surgeons has in recent weeks withdrawn its support for the BMA’s position. The Royal College of Surgeons said:

“Evidence from these countries demonstrates that investment in public awareness campaigns and infrastructure that supports transplantation services, such as the availability of intensive care beds and number of specialist nurses in organ donation, can substantially increase organ donation.”

That is key. It continued:

“It is therefore of profound importance that investment in these areas is increased to support organ donation.”

It also said that

“we believe that there is insufficient evidence that an opt-in or opt-out system increases rates of organ donation. We consider the issue to be a matter for personal ethical and philosophical deliberation. We believe that to improve organ donation rates it is vital that investment in public awareness campaigns and infrastructure that supports transplantation services is increased.”

That is the key point on which I want to finish. There is no evidence that moving to an opt-out or presumed consent system will deliver any more organs. The Welsh Government incessantly repeat that it will, which is why popular support is seen when people are asked about the system. Clearly, if people are told again and again by the Government that the system will increase the number of organs, they will say that they support it. If I believed that it would increase the number of organs, I would support it, but I do not, because it simply will not do that. An important point to remember is that we need to invest in those things that work.

[Jim Shannon]

In my introduction, I referred to three countries that have shown that the soft opt-out option was successful: Belgium, Croatia and Norway. There is evidence and, with respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that.

[Glyn Davies]

I have not studied the situation in Norway, but for many years the example in this debate was always Spain. Spain was the great success story, and it is indeed the best performer in the world. The Welsh Government have recently claimed Spain to be a presumed consent country. The reality is that the law was passed in 1979 and was effectively not followed. It was abandoned in 1980 and remains on the statute book, but it has never been activated. Ten years later, Spain introduced the changes recommended by the organ donation taskforce and had spectacular success. As a nation—I hope the Minister will say that we will carry on doing this—we need to continue doing what we have done, which has produced success: focusing on intensive care beds, specialist nurses and the example that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned of people telling their next of kin. If all families knew, we could raise the consent rate, perhaps by 20%, to the levels that Spain sees, and we would deliver all the organs we need. The key is people telling their next of kin, so that their next of kin know what they desire. Far more transplants would be carried out and more people suffering would live.

Organ Donation Register

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I look forward to your advice throughout this important debate, and I am also grateful to hon. Members for joining me for it today.

I think it was Daniel Defoe who in 1726 said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. That is true. These are issues that none of us really wants to talk about, but unfortunately, death touches us all. All of us in the Chamber and anyone watching will no doubt have been touched by the loss of a loved one. Many of us will have lost parents. Some will have lost a partner or a child, a son or a daughter. Those are terrible things to cope with—the sense of loss, and the pain and anguish that come with that terrible event.

The idea that, at such a sad and low time, when people’s world collapses, they should have the forethought, integrity and generosity to make the decision to give the organs of their loved one to support the lives of others is a very difficult thing for us all to contemplate, and we would all struggle with that question when asked. However, I have also spoken to people who have done exactly that: they have given the organs of their loved one for the use of others, to give life to others, and they tell me of the incredible meaning that it gives to the traumatic loss of a loved one. It puts that loss into context. In the words of one parent who spoke to me, their son will always live on. That is a tremendous thing for anybody to contemplate.

However, the reality is that in Britain today, some 7,000 people are currently on the waiting list for an organ transplant—right now, they are at home, ill, waiting for the phone to ring, waiting for the hospital to call, waiting for the chance of a new life. It is hard to put ourselves in their situation, but their lives depend on that phone call and on that organ being made available. The figures show that 1,300 of the people on the list will die. They will become too sick to receive a transplant. That is unacceptable, and it is what I hope we can address in today’s debate.

Last year, 1,323 people became organ donors, compared with 1,164 the previous year. That is good news; it is an increase of 13.7%. Transplants from those donors have risen by a third to more than 3,000. Currently, just under a third of the population of the UK are on the organ donation register. On 12 June this year, it was more than 20 million people—20 million people who have sat down and made the choice that after their death they would like to give life to others. I commend them for that choice and I hope that, by raising the issue today, we can encourage more to do the same.

I congratulate both this Government and the previous Government on the successes that have been achieved over recent years. There is a good news story to tell on organ donation. We saw a 50% rise in donor numbers by 2013 on the previous five years. Thanks to the implementation of the recommendations published by the organ donation taskforce in 2008 under the previous Government, transplants from those donors have jumped by a third. However, there is much that we can do, and much more that we must do if we are to give as many of those 7,000 people as we can the opportunity of life.

The numbers on the registers are still too low—pitifully low. As I mentioned earlier, just under a third of the people in the UK are now registered. In the UK, we have 13 donors per 1 million people, which is still one of the lowest rates in Europe. Compare us, for instance, with Spain, which has an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out system. There, the figure is 35 per 1 million people, which is almost three times as high.

So why are people in the UK not signing up? All the evidence shows—the surveys show—that 96% of the population support the principle of organ donation, yet only 30% of the population register, so what has happened to the remaining 66% or so? The rate of sign-up to the register varies dramatically across the UK. The highest sign-up rate to the register is, of course, in Scotland, where 41% of the population is a registered organ donor. I commend them north of the border, but why is it that in England and Wales, those signed up are only 30% and 31% respectively? Why is the figure so much higher north of the border?

I have been told that some of that is attributable to a simple, but hard-hitting television advertising campaign, encouraging people to sign up as a donor, and more importantly, to discuss their decision with their loved ones. The advert is very simple. A man in front of a camera suggests that people watching tell those they are with about their wishes for organ donation—“Right there, right now, look at everybody in the room and tell them. Make sure that your wishes are clear.” It is a hard-hitting advert, which is clear and effective.

I believe that we should have a simple, hard-hitting campaign just like that in England and Wales, and I push the Minister on it. I have previously written to the Secretary of State for Health encouraging him to do exactly that, and I urge the Minister to look again. Perhaps she could tell us whether she has any thoughts on an advertising campaign, because we all recognise that education, and talking about those things and raising awareness are key.

Education is a key way of encouraging people to sign up, and our schools also have a part to play. The “Give and Let Live” resource pack has been used in schools since 2007. It helps teachers to introduce 14 to 16-year-olds to the concept of organ donation, but it is not compulsory on the national curriculum. I am not suggesting that it should be; I recognise that we have to give head teachers the autonomy to make those decisions and to decide what is taught in personal, social, health and economic education lessons. However, raising awareness about the campaign and encouraging teachers to use the resource will encourage young people not only to sign up and get on the organ donor register, but to talk to their parents about it. That is also important. If we can get this conversation going on around the breakfast table between children and their parents, we will have much more chance of not only getting more people to sign up, but getting people to accept the wishes of their loved ones when that difficult question and difficult moment arises.

The use of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has also been incredibly successful in encouraging people to become organ donors. People are asked when they apply for a driving licence whether they also wish to join the organ donation register. It has been fantastic; over half a million people sign up every year as a result of that simple question, which takes seconds to answer.

I pay tribute to the Cabinet Office’s behavioural insights team—or “the nudge team”, as the press like to call it. They have done a study of this issue. It is a very interesting piece of work about the most effective way to frame the question to encourage people to sign up. Through a pilot that they ran, they found that just a slight change in the wording could lead to an additional 96,000 sign-ups every year. It is incredible how the human mind works and how it is affected by the questions that are asked. It is important that the Government think logically in that way to encourage people to do the right thing.

Of course, there is another important element to this. It is important not just to get people on the register. Also important is what happens once they are on the register and, sadly, in a position to become an organ donor. It is important that we convert people on the register into donors. We must increase the consent rates among the families. UK donation consent rates remain among the lowest in Europe. Four out of 10 families said no to a deceased relative’s organs being donated even when they were on the register. There has been no overall improvement in the consent rate since the organ donation register was introduced in 1994. How to deal with that is, for me, an important question.

It is interesting that as a person—I hope that the Minister would agree—of sound mind and body, I can decide to donate my organs after my death, yet my family can take that decision away from me and I have no choice about that. We do not do that in any other walk of life. We do not say that I can sign my will, saying that I am going to donate all my money to the Conservative party to secure Conservative elections in years to come, and that my family can then override that will, unless they can prove that for some reason I was not of sound mind and body. We must empower people to make the decision for themselves. Yes, it is important that they discuss it with their family, with their loved ones, but we must recognise that, as a free individual, I have the right to choose to donate my organs and no one should be allowed to take that right away from me. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any thoughts on that.

The aim of the NHS Blood and Transplant strategy, “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020”, published last year, is to increase the UK’s consent rate for donations from 58.6% to 80%. That is a very big jump. It is an ambitious target, and I hope that we can meet it. In contrast, Spain has the highest consent rate in Europe, at 84%. Last year, the consent rate in the UK increased by only 2%, from 56.5% the year before.

There is a startling difference between what happens when donation has been openly discussed with family members beforehand and what happens when the decision comes as a shock or surprise. In 2013, 94% of families in the UK agreed to an organ donation when their loved one was registered and had discussed their wishes with them. That fell away to 80% when they were on the register but had not discussed that with their family, but most worryingly it fell to 43.5% when the person’s wishes were not known at all. That clearly demonstrates the need not only to get people on the register, but to ensure that people talk about that when they are. We must ensure, under the system as it stands at the moment, that it is not a solitary decision. If we do not encourage people to let their families know about their decision, unfortunately their wishes, their intentions, the good that they wish to do will be denied.

Of the 20 million people in the UK who have put themselves on the organ donation register, only 60% have told their families that they have done so. We can do the maths: the wishes of 40% of the people who have the potential to give new life to another human being are being denied simply because they did not tell their wife, their husband or their partner what they wanted to happen after their death.

In 2012-13, 115 families overruled their relative’s consent for their organs to be used. I understand why they did that. I understand the pressure, the grief, the pain that those people are going through, but we cannot allow a situation in which those 115 deaths were for nothing. Those 115 deaths, with the conversion rate for organ donation, could have given more than 300 people a fresh lease of life. That is what we must focus on.

The UK will never achieve its potential for donation and transplantation when more than 40% of families refuse to allow donation, sometimes against the wishes of the patient. Obviously, when anyone has lost a loved one, it is a difficult and emotional time, but if the deceased had expressed a clear wish to donate their organs, it seems odd that the family can overrule that. That is why I urge the Minister to think about changing the law so that we can make a choice for ourselves to do the right thing and donate our organs.

The Welsh Government, as the Minister will know, are seeking to deal with the issue. From December 2015, they are introducing an opt-out system of presumed consent unless a deceased person had expressed a wish not to donate their organs. A similar system has produced incredible results in Spain. I recognise that this is a hugely controversial issue. It has been characterised as a case of “Who owns your organs?” I recognise that there are deep and heartfelt reasons why people would oppose such a system. I am also aware that previously the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), said that the Government had no plans to introduce it elsewhere in the UK, because of those cultural, ethical and legal issues.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene; I hope that later I will catch your eye, Mr Hollobone, and can make a contribution. This is the first point on which I completely disagree with my hon. Friend. Does he accept that there is no evidence whatever that changing to an opt-out system, even in Spain, which I will deal with in my speech, has delivered more organs? To consider it an ethical issue—the Opposition and many of us base our view on the efficacy of such a change, rather than on the ethical position—is, I think, a mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak in this important debate on an issue that has featured strongly in my life. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) on securing the debate, and on the reasoned and comprehensive way in which he presented his case. I apologise to him and to you, Mr Hollobone; I did not notice that this debate was taking place until about five minutes before it started, so I have not prepared. I apologise if my comments are in any way disjointed.

Donating an organ is just about the greatest gift that anybody can make. It is great to do so on death, but it is perhaps even greater in life, such as when people donate kidneys altruistically. I know several people who have done so, and it is one of the greatest things that one can do. This is a particularly good day to discuss organ donation; the night before last, we watched Erik Compton, who has had two heart transplants, come second in the US Open golf championship. It demonstrates how a transplant can not only give life but allow the recipient to live a life that is completely full and to do the most amazing things. Coming second in the US Open is a pretty amazing thing to have done.

My own interest started with a woman I knew, Trudy, who was a constituent, although I was not the MP then. She had one of the first heart and lung transplants at Papworth. She was a most amazing person. Together, we worked to deliver kidney dialysis in Montgomeryshire, where there was none. A unit has now been approved and built, and is delivering a terrific service. Trudy died a couple of years ago, but the dialysis unit stands as a monument to the fantastic woman that she was.

I am a trustee of the Kidney Wales Foundation. One of my disappointments is that I disagree with the foundation—I am the only trustee who takes this view. I disagree completely with what the Welsh Government have done in changing the law to introduce presumed consent. I have always been a bit disappointed by that. The aim of every trustee—me and all the others, although we disagree—is to increase the number of organ donations and the number of organs available. I have always been driven by the evidence. I have never been influenced by the ethical debates; I am influenced only by where the evidence takes me in terms of how to deliver the most organs. I firmly believe that what the Welsh Government have done will absolutely not deliver more organs, despite what they say.

The only time I ever feel resentful in this sensitive debate is when, as has so often happened on the numerous times when I have been invited to speak about this issue in the media, somebody in desperate need of a new organ is interviewed and I am then asked why I want to prevent them from having an organ. I am utterly appalled by the media’s lack of objectivity and the lack of reference to evidence when dealing with the issue.

We need to move forward as best we can and I want to focus on policy for the future. I will make some specific points. We must look at what happened in Spain. Spain has been referred to in this debate on several occasions and it is a huge success story. However, it is often incorrectly referred to as a country that introduced an opt-out system. That claim is absolutely false, even if the Welsh Government used it as part of the basis for their argument. Despite people writing to them—I have written to them—to tell them that that claim is false, it is still what they base their consultation on. It was a disgrace to conduct a consultation on those terms.

What happened in Spain was that opt-out legislation was introduced in 1979. Twelve months later, it was pretty well abandoned. It remains on the books, but like a lot of laws it has never been implemented. Ten years later the Spanish Government realised that the legislation was not working and they introduced a series of other changes. I believe that it is those changes that we should concentrate on if we are to make a difference.

We should also learn from the organ donation taskforce, which my hon. Friend referred to several times. It did a terrific job under its great chair, Elizabeth Buggins, who is one of the most expert people on this issue. The taskforce considered the issue for two or three years. Everyone assumed that the taskforce would recommend a change to presumed consent. However, when it produced a report, all its members had changed their minds because they had looked at the evidence. The person who has taken over from me in Montgomeryshire believed that changing to presumed consent was a way forward. I said, “Look at the evidence.” As soon as she studied that evidence, she changed her mind.

There are things we should do and that we should learn.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend not only for attending the debate, but for making such an important and heartfelt contribution; I think that we all value that. I understand what he is saying about the opt-in system versus the opt-out system and the need to follow the evidence. However, does he agree that ultimately organ donation should be my choice? It should be the individual’s choice as to whether their organs are used for donation after they die, and nobody else’s choice.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because that is a perfectly reasonable position to take. I do not know what the figures are—I do not know how often this situation happens—but I want to know them. I am interested in them because the situation seems wrong.

I accept the point that has been made, but the one counterpoint is that sometimes people can change their minds even though they are carrying an organ donor card. However, if people have joined a campaign, we should assume that that is their view. I would be surprised if there are many instances where a family would overrule an individual’s decision; it would be interesting if the Minister could give us the figures to show how often that happens. If it is a major issue, we should address it; I agree with that point.

The first issue that we must deal with is the specialist nurses for organ donation. That is what made a huge difference in Spain, and it is the area where we really need to concentrate. That is what has made the big difference here. Since the organ donation taskforce reported, the number of donations has increased by 50%, which was the target. That is good news, but it is the specialist nurses who have made the difference.

I spent some time talking to the specialist nurse in Shropshire and indeed he has agreed to visit local schools and to organise discussions and debates. We can use specialist nurses to help people to understand this debate, because it is such a sensitive time to talk to people. Talking to people when the person who perhaps they love most looks as if they are alive, because their bodies are still breathing, even though they are brain-dead, and saying that that person’s support system should be switched off and their organs taken is a hugely traumatic experience. We need trained nurses who have the skills to communicate with people in those difficult circumstances. It is the specialist nurses for organ donation who can do that.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Four out of 10 families refuse consent when they are asked to give it.

[Glyn Davies]

I think that that is a repetition of the previous intervention. However, the point is interesting and I would like the Minister to give us the figures to show to what extent that situation actually happens, and whether a specialist nurse in organ donation was involved in individual cases.

The second thing that is crucial, particularly in Wales, is the number of intensive care beds. A lot of people assume that an organ can be donated when there is a road accident or when somebody is suddenly killed in another way, but there can only be a donation when the person is in an intensive care bed and there is the facility to take a donation. We have a shortage of intensive care beds. The number of such beds in Spain is huge. It is much higher than the number in the UK, and in Wales the number is particularly low. That is the sector where the investment needs to go to ensure that there are intensive care beds. I know that in the last year there have been cases in Wales of organs that were available for donation but they were simply not used because there was not an intensive care bed to allow the donation to happen.

The final point I want to make is, I think, the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Burton secured this debate today. It is about the issue of awareness. We should put every effort we can into campaigns to have everybody tell their next of kin their view on donation. That is what I say to people in schools when I talk to them; I say to people, “Tell your family what your view is, so that they know clearly.” Carrying an organ donation card is helpful in that respect, because it very much gives an indication of someone’s view. That is why I was interested in the point that my hon. Friend has made in his interventions on me.

What we really need, and the Government can afford it, is a big advertising campaign based on the message, “Tell the family. Make sure your next of kin know your wishes.” If we had such a campaign, we would raise the number of consenting next of kin. If we can increase the number of people in Britain who consent to organ donation to the level it is in Spain, we will not have the thousands of people dying that we have now.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will do my best to respond to all the points raised, although I suspect I have the least time of any speaker in the debate. I may prove challenged in that regard, but as colleagues know, I will always follow up afterwards if there is some point which I am unable to get to.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) on securing this debate. Just having this debate is part of the answer to the question he posed. The issue can affect us all, and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise its profile and to have the debate ahead of the special week coming up in July. The debate is particularly useful in giving us a chance to reflect on how we can best use that time in Parliament.

I put on record my tribute to those who work in the NHS with such dedication, determination and commitment. They provide such fantastic care, particularly, in the light of what we are talking about, at difficult times in families’ lives. To try to address some of the specific points raised, I will take as read many of the facts and figures put on the record by my hon. Friend and others. We acknowledge those figures. The one thing I want to do is thank everyone who donates and everyone who takes part in the programme. I also pay tribute to local leaders, such as William Saunders, whom my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

We can take it as read that we do not have enough donors, but we have made significant progress. The Government are continuing the work of previous Governments by investing in the donation programme to optimise transplantation. The donation programme was strengthened between 2008 and 2014, increasing donation rates by 63% and transplant rates by 47%. The trend is positive, but today’s debate has explored how we can accelerate progress and address some of the more stubborn problems.

As hon. Members have already suggested, too many people are waiting too long for a suitable organ to be donated, even though organ donation has increased by over 3 million since 2010 to over 20 million. One organ donor can save or transform as many as nine people’s lives. The exchange is not one-for-one; it is an extraordinary opportunity to change many different lives. It is also worth recognising, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), touched on, that although half a million people die in the UK each year, fewer than 5,000 die in circumstances in which they can become donors: the pool of people is not as big as we often think and is actually relatively small. If I have time, I will discuss how we are considering how the pool might be expanded.

Much of the debate rightly focused on the UK’s consent rate, which is one of the lowest in Europe. Last year, four in 10 families said no to allowing their loved ones’ organs to be donated. In 2012-13, 105 families and in 2013-14 119 families said no even though they knew that their family member was on the organ donation register and wanted to be a donor. That equates to many transplants and many people’s lives that could have been saved or enormously enhanced. Family agreement is a crucial part of the donation process, but because people do not always want to discuss their wishes, relatives tend to say no when in doubt.

I want to explore some of the operational aspects of donation. We all agree that we want more organ donation and more people on the register, but we should consider some of the challenges, in particular the one put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton about why people’s wishes can be overridden. To be clear, we do not need to change the law, which currently protects the right of the individual to be an organ donor. The challenge comes from the complexity and sensitivity of operational issues and not legal issues. Clinicians have a duty of care towards the family. For example—I have every reason to believe that this is based on reality—if it is three in the morning and a clinician is faced with a family who do not want their relative’s organs to be donated and they are crying and clinging to the body, the clinician is likely to go with the family’s wishes.

[Glyn Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, may I try to get through this point?

That example highlights a difficult situation for a clinician. Furthermore, if the family’s wishes are overridden and they make a big campaign out of it and express their grief and dissatisfaction publicly, even though they know the wishes of the deceased, the programme as a whole could be put in jeopardy. If the Burton Mail ran the headline, “They took my son’s heart against my wishes”, the impact on those on the donation register and on families who want to have that conversation could be significant. The issues are sensitive, but it is not for lack of will that people do not ensure that an individual’s wishes are respected. It is important to understand the pressure that clinicians are under in those difficult circumstances. I want to put it on the record that, once retrieved from a body, a heart needs to be used within six hours, livers and lungs within 12 hours and kidneys within approximately 24 hours. The decisions have to be made quickly. It is not like the reading of a will, which can take place weeks, months or years later once calm has been restored and people are more reflective. Such decisions must be made on the spot.

I hope that that provides a little context as to why clinicians face challenges. Most organ donors are not on the register, so the key thing is to change the culture around how we talk about the end of life and to make donation a natural thing for everyone to allow. For some people and communities, however, that is not easy.

I pay tribute to the specialist nurses for organ donation—the lovely SN-ODs—for their wonderful work. There is no doubt that having trained people who can have conversations at sensitive times is absolutely critical. I note the challenge about the number of specialist nurses drawn from minority and ethnic communities, who we know make a difference, and I will discuss it with NHS England and NHS Blood and Transplant.

Our strategy is evolutionary, but that does not mean that we cannot make big leaps forward in some areas. The nudge work to get more people to sign up has been extraordinary in some cases. In one of the largest public sector studies of its kind, over 1 million people took part to test eight different ways of asking people to join the register. That has resulted in some significant gains, as was mentioned by the shadow Minister. There is a range of other measures, including using social media and other points of contact. There is a schools project, “Give and Let Live”. Getting teenagers to discuss the subject with their families and become thought leaders is important. As a result of the work going on in schools, young people are often good at leading conversations within the family.

National transplant week is coming up. I do not have time to go into the details, but many things are happening around the theme of “Spell it out”. It is all about the conversation and about getting family members to talk to each other. Given the interest—I am sure that Members of Parliament can help—I will attempt to write to all colleagues with more details about the week and how we can play our part and do our bit in our constituencies to lead the conversation. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton visited a local mosque to see whether he could help to lead the conversation there, something which in many cases is far more effective than top-down campaigns. I do, however, note the challenges around some of the big, high-profile, in-your-face campaigns that have been run in places such as Scotland.

I want to assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others that work is going on to consider widening the pool of donors. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is doing some research on babies—a sensitive subject—to see what can be done about the challenge of child donation. The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs is reviewing the evidence on the outcomes of UK transplants of organs from donors who had cancer or a history of cancer. We are beginning to learn more about the possibility of successful donation even when someone has suffered from cancer, and SaBTO is drawing up a series of recommendations to help transplant surgeons.

It is also worth saying that, even in Wales and in Northern Ireland were the private Member’s Bill to succeed, it is still the case that a family can override a decision in the circumstances that I have described. We must be sensitive to the circumstances in which decisions are being taken. In Wales, relatives will still be asked to support the donation and can object if they know that the deceased would not have consented.

In the remaining minute or so, I want to say that it is absolutely right for Members to place concerns on the record about donation from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, where the refusal rate to donation is nearly 80% compared with around 40% nationally, which is significant. My Department supports the National Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Transplant Alliance, which does great work in this area, including, for example, on consent rates. Subject to parliamentary business, I intend to visit Birmingham next week to launch a new project to train peer educators from the Pakistani Muslim community in Birmingham. We are training community champions there to go out and do some of that work. I am happy to talk to colleagues to see whether we can replicate that elsewhere. There are some significant cultural, rather than doctrinal, reasons why—

[Glyn Davies]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

I do not think that I will be able to give way to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will forgive me. We can perhaps speak immediately after the debate.

In conclusion, we can do many things to encourage more people to register. We are absolutely open to ideas from hon. Members on both sides of the House and all parts of the country and the world. We review and are led by the evidence, as my hon. Friend said. Debates such as this provide an excellent opportunity to raise the issue’s profile and we can hopefully do more in Parliament as national transplant week approaches. I will end by paying tribute to the great work of the excellent NHS Blood and Transplant.

Care Homes

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

First, I applaud the hon. Lady for going to those care homes and seeing for herself what is going on in response to Care Quality Commission reports. We should all be willing to do that. I have already said that the CQC has been given extra funding, and we are completely committed to ensuring that it has the capacity to do its job properly and substantially increase the number of apprentices in that sector. As she says, proper training is vital to ensure a properly trained work force.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the most effective way to raise standards and ensure a culture of compassion and sympathetic care in a full range of care settings is by strengthening corporate responsibility? We need public opprobrium to be aimed at the owners and directors of those companies so that they are persuaded to introduce systems such as lay visitor or advocacy schemes within those care settings, to ensure that examples of this sort do not happen.

[Norman Lamb]

My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that the Care Quality Commission can prosecute when there are examples of the new fundamental standards of care we are introducing being breached. In future, no one will be able to get away with allowing poor standards of care in their workplace. We will take action through prosecution and the fit-and-proper-person test to drive up standards.

Atrial Fibrillation

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a debate that is hugely important to me on a personal level. I agree with every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

Soon after I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 2010, I was selected for Question 1 at Prime Minister’s questions. I immediately thought that that was going to be my great occasion. One knows that one is on national television and everyone is watching. It is a chance to support the thrust of the Prime Minister’s argument and I was really looking forward to it, but on the Monday morning I called my GP, because I had been suffering a bit of breathlessness, and I was rushed into hospital because he thought that I was having a heart attack. This is what influenced me greatly. I then spent three days in the assessment unit of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and it was probably the most expensive bed in the hospital.

As I said, I was there for three days with a supposed heart attack. No one was telling me what was happening. It was only because I became so angry that I almost had a heart attack that I had some reasonable treatment, and I was told that I was probably suffering from atrial fibrillation. I had never heard of this; I did not know what it was, but as I got to know a little more about it, I learned how, in many cases, it is very easy to put right. I was given electric shock treatment—cardioversion—which reversed the fibrillation on the first attempt, and I made a full recovery, but I learned quite a lot about the condition and I realised the sheer lack of awareness that there is of it. Then I understood what the hon. Member for Huddersfield has been telling us. The issue is not so much the atrial fibrillation itself—although it can be quite difficult for many people—but what it causes. It multiplies the chance of a stroke by about five times. That is a massive cost to the NHS, but it also completely destroys people’s lives in a way that AF does not necessarily do. There are several other diseases associated with it, but the key issue is the implications of the cost of a stroke.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point on an important issue. Those of us who work right next door to him are delighted that he made a full recovery at that time. Does he agree with me that part of making people more aware of atrial fibrillation and what can be done to help sufferers is providing defibrillators? Some very good work has been done across the country, but particularly in my constituency of Gloucester by the Rotary club, which has funded and installed a defibrillator in Gloucester cathedral; and I pay tribute especially to the Hickman family, who have raised huge amounts of money for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which is also doing good work in this area.

[Glyn Davies]

I certainly do agree with that. Defibrillators are being installed, through voluntary efforts and fundraising, in many parts of the country. That is not only a good thing in itself, but the way it leads the community to work together is also a very good thing.

I want to return to today’s issue, because I am aware of the time. Today’s issue is the uptake of novel oral anti-coagulants. Warfarin was my treatment and it was fine; it worked very well. However, there is a problem because of the number of occasions I have to visit a hospital. It was once or twice a week in the early stages. That is very difficult. In London, I happen to live next door to St Thomas’s and I could pop in as I was going to work in the morning, so it worked out quite well.

However, there is an issue with warfarin, for two reasons. One is that it is not as effective as the new anti-coagulants that have been approved by NICE and come on stream. Also, there is a negativity about warfarin because it is, in many people’s minds, a rat poison. I remember seeing a headline in a national newspaper, which could have been the Daily Mail, with a huge picture of rat poison—warfarin. The standard way of dealing with atrial fibrillation is still to ask people to take warfarin regularly, and there it was, being promoted as a rat poison. Nothing could be more damaging to the health of the nation than that campaign. I thought it was a disgrace.

I can understand in a way, because of short-termism—the way in which things are often done in Britain today—that there are financial reasons for the use of warfarin. Clearly, there is an extra cost associated with the new products. Warfarin is as cheap as chips. I dismiss aspirin because it does not have any effect anyway, and it is a bit of a disgrace that aspirin is still being recommended. As I said, warfarin is as cheap as chips, but of course it is not as effective. There may be a short-term gain, but there is a long-term cost. I understand the financial pressures. There are financial pressures on every organisation and service. I understand those, but I think that what is happening is wrong. However, the lack of understanding and knowledge of the new products—the lack of awareness—is what we really have to challenge.

There is a risk element. We know that there is a risk. There is a small risk, if one s thinning the blood, of an internal bleed, but there is a very large risk, in not doing it, of causing some heart-related illness. The balance of risk is just not clearly understood. We need a genuine campaign, with Government support and the NHS organisations’ full support, to move towards use of the novel oral anti-coagulants. There would be a long-term saving from that; I accept that it is not short term. It would remove the element of suspicion and of risk that is associated with the standard use of warfarin.

We have to deal with AF, because the numbers of people suffering from it and the implications of it are huge. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take from today’s debate, which is part of a campaign, the message that we need to move forward as quickly as possible on the best treatments for atrial fibrillation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

The statistics that I am aware of are slightly less positive than those that the hon. Gentleman has cited. It is not for us in this place to micromanage medical professionals or to do their jobs for them. However, it is our job to raise legitimate concerns about care for AF or any other health conditions. We must do our best, as stewards of the health system, to push for good local commissioning that is mindful of best practice. I have undertaken to write to NHS England about that, and I will be happy to share the reply that I receive with the hon. Member for Huddersfield and other hon. Members and hon. Friends.

The exact causes of AF are unclear, but it is important to get the diagnosis right and to diagnose the condition as quickly as possible. We believe that some 18% of cases of AF are undetected, so there is more work to be done. NHS England has recognised that, and has suggested that CCGs should work with local practices to target people who are at risk from AF. The issue is already on NHS England’s radar, but I will write to obtain further assurances that it is being taken as seriously as it should be; I am sure that that is the case.

Research is under way into the condition. The National Institute for Health Research is funding a study into automatic diagnosis of AF in primary care using a hand-held device, which may help identify more patients who have AF and reduce the number of related strokes. If someone does not know that they have the condition, they do not know that they need to see a GP to get help. We must do as much as we can to support people to recognise that they have a medical condition and that help and treatment are available. I hope that the research into that technology provides better early detection of AF, and that that comes forward in a rapid and timely manner.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the Minister for giving way and allowing me to correct an omission in my contribution. Does he agree that the excellent work of the Atrial Fibrillation Association in promoting knowledge of the disease has had a hugely positive impact, which we should all appreciate?

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that work. When NICE draws up guidelines, it consults best practice and tries to engage with key stakeholders. In addition, the Royal College of Physicians has developed some national clinical guidelines for stroke with the objective of encouraging higher levels of anti-coagulation. That is directly linked to some of the things we have debated today.

It is a testament to the work of groups such as the Atrial Fibrillation Association that we are helping to raise the profile of the condition and to get early support and help for people. There is clearly more to do, and NICE must continue to develop strong guidelines to support understanding of the best care and pathways for people who have AF. NICE is updating guidelines at the moment and developing a quality standard on AF, which will set out what a high-quality AF service should look like and drive improvement locally by helping local commissioners and CCGs understand what good looks like in AF care.

Mitochondrial Transfer (Three-Parent Children)

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That must be right. It ends up being a multi-generational experiment with the lives of people.

To return to the PNT technique, it is effectively cloning. As I said, it is telling that the licence for the experiment was adapted from the licence given to create Dolly the sheep. Cloning is widely regarded as a dangerous technique. Essentially what is being done is eugenic.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The company that developed Dolly the sheep received funding from an organisation of which I was chairman. I remember visiting it and expressing a concern that it was one step from cloning sheep to cloning humans. I was reassured that no such thing could possibly ever happen, as the human race was far too sensible. This issue challenges that, big time.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As so often, my hon. Friend is right.

The dictionary definition of “eugenic” is:

“Of or bringing about the improvement of the type of offspring produced”.

The 1922 Eugenics Congress called it

“the self direction of human evolution”.

There is grave question mark about eugenics. It frightens almost every sensible person. It is not only people who share my views who think that. In a letter to The Guardian dated 15 March 2013, that fear was made explicit by a number of medical experts. It is interesting that they chose The Guardian, which is not a bastion of right-wing reaction, to make that point. In a country nervous about genetically modified crops we are making the foolhardy move to genetically modified babies.

There are three categories of risks and dangers that have not been fully considered. The first is the category raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), namely practical risks relating to the long-term efficacy of the therapy. An article published in Nature in October 2012 said:

“Pioneering work in nonhuman primates is critical for the development, and safety and efficacy evaluations, of new treatments.”

That view has been discounted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority without any good reason being given. Current research using PNT in macaques has yet to be shown to be successful. Macaque zygotes do not survive the PNT process well, even though their oocytes are less prone to abnormal activation and fertilisation than human ones. If that is the case, surely we should continue with such experiments first, rather than relying on the fact that four monkeys have reached the age of three.

Oral Answers to Questions

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to promote awareness of atrial fibrillation.

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

NHS England is responsible for promoting awareness of atrial fibrillation among health care professionals, and the new NHS improvement body, NHS Improving Quality, is encouraging GPs to detect and manage atrial fibrillation by promoting the use of GRASP-AF risk assessment tools. My hon. Friend will know about that as it is supported by the all-party group on atrial fibrillation, which recently published a helpful report on AF. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and his colleagues on that.

[Glyn Davies]

What steps are the Government taking to improve the uptake of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-approved medicines and alternatives to warfarin for the treatment of atrial fibrillation to reduce the incidence of AF-related stroke?

[Jane Ellison]

NICE has issued technology appraisal guidance to the NHS on the use of newer anticoagulants—I think there were three in 2012—for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. NHS commissioners are legally required to fund treatments recommended by NICE in its technology appraisal guidance.

Dementia Care and Services

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I am delighted by that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to say something very quickly about the initiative being taken by the Alzheimer’s Society. If someone applies to be a dementia friend, they can go along to an hour-long session on understanding dementia better. It is very illuminating to go through that process. We got the initial idea from Japan, where it has gathered enormous momentum. If we can get a million people across society who better understand dementia, it could have an enormously powerful impact by making our communities more dementia-friendly and understanding and giving people with dementia a better life. I would therefore encourage my hon. Friend to become a dementia friend.

The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) talked about her constituency office. I will accept the challenge she laid down. I absolutely accept the case she makes. We are all serving the public, and it is critical that we make our own facilities friendly for people with dementia and their carers. My constituency office staff do not know this yet, but I will encourage them to go through this process, as all right hon. and hon. Members should.

I was struck by the constituency examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell gave. He mentioned Paul Mancey of Orchard Care Homes, which is ensuring that people entering care homes get proper care and support and that their particular needs are met, and the Springfield Healthcare initiative.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene on an issue that, usually because of personal experience, is close to our hearts. He speaks of the importance of care homes, understanding dementia and caring for sufferers properly, but does he agree that the best treatment is care in the home of the person suffering from dementia? In my experience, a change in circumstances advances dementia faster than anything else. By far and away the best way to treat people suffering from dementia is to make it Government policy to support people to stay in their own homes.

[Norman Lamb]

I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. The most important thing is that the care and support should always be right for the individual. Whatever they need they should be provided with. I recently visited the most amazing GP surgery in Gnosall, Staffordshire, which has managed—this demonstrates a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell made about the variability of dementia diagnosis rates—to achieve diagnosis rates of close to 100%. That demonstrates what is possible. Most of the diagnosing is done in the community within primary care without referral to a memory clinic. What they have found is that by getting early diagnosis and then having very good community follow-up and support—the general practice is central to that—people are staying in their own homes and maintaining a good life for far longer and admissions to care homes and nursing homes are significantly reduced. That demonstrates what is possible and confirms the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) made.

Hospices (Children and Young People)

Glyn Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

During the course of the debate, all the hospices are going to be mentioned, which is wonderful and exactly what I want from the debate. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will give way in a moment, but I must deal with the previous intervention first. Hope House deals with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), as well as with the Welsh area through Ty Gobaith, so I will also take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies).

[Glyn Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I, too, want to laud the services from Hope House, which serves most of my constituency. Will he also accept how important it is to have a good relationship across the border between England and Wales? So many services simply fall apart because of the border, but at least it does not for this particular service, because of the activities of Hope House.

[Stuart Andrew]

That is absolutely right. A lot of lessons can be learned from the hospice movement on providing care, because what matters at the end of the day is the children and the families—they should be able to access services as easily as possible.

I was talking about the youngsters living longer, but the hospice environment was generally geared towards young children. It started to become less appropriate or even desirable for young adults to go into the same building. The trustees at Martin House took the brave decision to build a new, separate teenage unit in the grounds. Through generous public donations, Whitby Lodge opened its doors in 2002, the first hospice of its kind in the United Kingdom. It has been a huge success, and is being replicated around the country, because young adults get to behave just like that: as young adults. The conversation is more appropriate to their age, and they can share and talk openly about their own needs, fears and hopes. As a result, the care team can learn more about the young people and help them where they can with their particular ambitions. While I was based at Martin House, a number of young people went to university, encouraged by the care team. The team also tried to help those young people when they were going through the transition from child care to adult social care.