Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the basis of the average fair rate, which I mentioned. New clause 15 would provide a mechanism for establishing a formula by which fee rates are set transparently for both domiciliary and residential care. The organisations representing the sector believe that that would lead to much greater transparency, and I think that it would deal with some of the rather toxic relationships that sometimes appear to exist, both nationally and locally.

New clause 2 is about older people, particularly the proposition that we should take a leaf out of the book of our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to having a commissioner for older people. Ageism and ageist attitudes are endemic in our society and, indeed, in public services. Our society is ageing, with life spans increasing, and that profound change will affect us all. It has implications for how the NHS and care services behave, but it goes far wider.

My new clause simply calls on the Government to work on the mechanics of establishing such a post so that there is someone to listen to and give a voice to older people; to champion their vital contribution to our economy—in work, as care givers and as volunteers, mentors and community leaders—rather than their being seen as burdens, which is how older people are all too often portrayed; to challenge the complacent and lazy stereotypes; and to hold public services to account.

Such a role already exists in Northern Ireland, Wales and other parts of the world. It would involve asking such questions as: why do the 360,000 cases of abuse suffered by older people every year lead to so few prosecutions, why are older people excluded from clinical trials and other research, and why do we stop reporting people’s cancer survival rates once they pass the age of 75? I hope that the Minister is open to the idea, and I look forward to his response.

New clause 26 deals with the issue of mental health, which came up very briefly in Committee. I know that the Minister is a passionate champion of mental health concerns. The new clause simply says that if a person has an accident—for example, breaks their arm—suffers a stroke or has a heart attack, the last place they would expect it to be sorted out is a cell in a police station, but that that is exactly where people who have a mental health crisis find themselves. The statistics are stunning: 36% of all people who are taken to a place of safety find themselves in a police station and stay there for more than 10 hours. Not only have adults been subject to that process, but 263 children, on the most recent figures. My new clause simply seeks to place a sunset provision on the definition of a place of safety, including a police station, which should create a way of concentrating minds to ensure that services are provided in the right place at the right time for children and adults.

I come to new clauses 7 and 9 last because they are about addressing what we might regard as the elephant in the room in any conversation about care services and the Bill’s noble intentions of improving the quality of care and of driving well-being into the heart of how care and support are delivered. The new clauses raise interconnected questions about the future funding of care and support, and about the independent nature of our health and care systems. Social care has for far too long—for decades—been the poor relation to health in decisions about public expenditure. Today’s funding challenges are chronic and are not simply the result of deficit reduction.

New clause 9 reflects the concern of a remarkable coalition of interests outside this place, including the Local Government Association, the Care and Support Alliance, hundreds of non-governmental organisations, directors of social services and chief executives, and many more besides. They all want to serve notice on the Government that they are concerned about the serious impact that the continuing pressure on local government spending will have on the ability of councils to deliver the care and support that everybody in this House wants to be delivered under the Bill. The picture is complex. Different councils are coping differently—some are overspending their care budgets and some are underspending them—but the trend is clear, despite the extra £7.2 billion that was allocated in the 2010 spending review and the transfer of money as part of the better care fund in the most recent spending review.

New clause 9 simply provides for an assessment to be made and signed off by the programme board that oversees the implementation of the Bill. It is not an unreasonable request that we check that the sums add up and that the money is sufficient to deliver what the Bill is about. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about how transparent that process will be. Impact assessments are one thing; this process would be another. I think that it would provide considerable reassurance to those who will have the job of implementing the legislation.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I apologise for breaking the right hon. Gentleman’s flow. I agree with virtually everything that he has said. On the need to ensure that the Bill does everything that it says on the tin, may I draw attention to the fact that when I met my constituent, Jason Roche, who is very active in the Royal National Institute of Blind People, he pointed out that 43% of blind and partially sighted people in England have lost access to adult social care services since 2005. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill must address the needs of working-age adults who suffer from disabilities?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes an important point. If one looks at the trends, one sees that there is no doubt that there are questions to be asked about why some people are not receiving the service that one would expect. Some of that—although I do not pretend that this covers anywhere near all of it—can be explained by the changes to the way in which services are organised. Some of it can be explained by the need to do more to re-able people and to enable them to maintain their independence. I do not say that to evade the question. That is why I have put new clauses 7 and 9 before the House. I genuinely think that whoever is in government in future will have to have a much more systematic approach to making decisions about how we meet demand.

That brings me on to new clause 7, which simply says that the Government should take a longer-term view. It states that every five years, the Government should look 20 years forward and take an independent assessment of the future demand for care and health services. That could be done by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It could provide modelling for the whole health and social care system that looks at the impact on demand, technology, demography and health status, and at the balance between all those factors. It could also look at the interactions between health and care, primary and secondary care, physical and mental health, and treatment and prevention. That would finally implement a recommendation that was made by Derek Wanless in his review for the Government in 2000. That is supported by the King’s Fund, which has suggested much the same thing.

In Committee, neither the Government nor the Opposition were able to make any funding commitments about part 1 of the Bill. I entirely understand why that is the case. However, we know that as the eligibility criteria are drawn more tightly, more people are excluded from help. In the long run, that does not save money, but shunts the costs. It pushes people away from living an independent life and towards a life of dependency. I hope that all parties will, in the end, sign up to something like new clause 7 as a good part of the future sound governance of our health and social care system. I hope that the Minister will support that.

I apologise to the House for speaking at such length, but I have put forward a number of issues that I hope will provide a framework for debating this important set of reforms. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

On an individual basis, I do not see a problem with that. The problem arises when dealing with large volumes of harvested data that include not just primary care records of patients in the community but hospital records, where pharmaceutical companies are perhaps able to benefit. Whether that is in patients’ best interests needs further consideration. I do not think that there is any such concern about individual conversations with GPs or pharmacists, but there are still major holes in the Government’s proposals. They need to be tightened further. A good starting point would be Labour’s new clause 25.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman has been incredibly gracious in giving way on several occasions. He has said that new clause 25 should be commended. I wonder whether he has considered amendment (b), which suggests that one of the other issues about safeguarding data is people being satisfied of the competence of the organisations that will receive that data and that they comply fully with the data protection obligations.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I have considered that, and that is an important point. Compliance is important. Those issues should be addressed in the Bill. If we are to ensure that there is public trust, those points must be addressed.

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Burstow]

I give way to the hon. Lady because she tried to intervene first.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Last evening, I attended the launch of UKCK—a group of charities coming together to raise funds to purchase advanced radiotherapy equipment. Will the Minister explain why, despite his previous assurances, regions like the north-east are having to turn to charities to raise funds to buy this potentially life-saving equipment?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to supply me with the details of regions that are having to do that, I will certainly write to him on the matter. What we are doing is making an extra £750 million available to the NHS during this spending period to support the investment in radiotherapy services. I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman on his particular point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and he is absolutely right to identify the priority that this Government are now placing on dealing with the harm caused by alcohol, not least because of the 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions. The strategy outlined by the Home Secretary last week is about education and raising awareness; enforcement; and treatment—making sure that the treatment services are more widely spread. It is also about recognising that this is a cross-government responsibility, not the responsibility of any one Department. That is why the proposals to use a national minimum unit pricing policy will tackle cheap booze and the binge culture.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T3. We now know that the Conservatives have received more than £8 million in donations from private health care companies since 2001. This goes beyond simply cash for access to a much more sinister issue of cash for policy influence. Ministers have said that they do not expect any increase in private sector provision in the NHS, but how will this be measured in years to come?

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Part 3 is a key element of the Bill. As the Government have made clear, commissioners will decide whether, when and how to use competition to deliver services for patients. Where they decide to do so, part 3 will ensure that competition is regulated effectively and in the patient’s best interests. Under the Bill, Monitor will, in future, regulate all providers of NHS services, so that all patients are protected, irrespective of who supplies their treatment and care.

In the earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) asked about the applicability of competition law to the function of commissioning. I draw his attention to European case law, which makes it clear that commissioning is not subject to competition law. It is the function that matters when it comes to determining whether this is applicable—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Paul Burstow]

I am responding to my hon. Friend and, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am going to carry on doing so.

In addition, the Office of Fair Trading has published guidance that is consistent with the view that the Department has expressed on this matter. I will write to my hon. Friend with the detailed case law, so that I can quote the case reference for him.

Claims have also been made that part 3 does something else. Specifically, it has been suggested that it introduces competition and competition law into the NHS, as if that were the case for the first time. Part 3 does not do that, nor does anything else in the Bill. The NHS will, as a result of the Bill, be better insulated against the inappropriate application of competition law, particularly as it develops more integrated services, which are now embedded throughout this legislation. Without Part 3, the NHS would continue to be exposed to price competition and the preferential treatment of private providers introduced by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, Labour’s 2006 procurement regulations assume that public authorities will be securing services from a market—that will not always be appropriate in the NHS—and so, under the existing regulations from the 2006 legislation, commissioners are placed at greater risk of legal challenge whenever they decide to secure services without competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I wish to seek a point of clarification on the Minister’s reference to what Earl Howe said about the Bill providing

“insulation against inappropriate application of competition law”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2012; Vol. 735, c. 1689-90.]

Concerns were raised in the Minister’s own party about American-style private health care interests being able to use these mechanisms to provide health care services. Will he give an example of how this “insulation” would protect an NHS trust from being taken over by a north American private health care company?

[Paul Burstow]

That shows a fundamental flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument and in his understanding of what the Bill actually does. I commend to him the contribution made by Earl Howe, the Minister in the other place, on 6 March 2012, when he set out in great detail—this can be found in column 1689—all the aspects relevant to how this Bill protects the NHS, creating insulation for it against the application of competition law under the current framework, as provided by the 2006 legislation, which does not offer those protections. It certainly does not give commissioners the ability to exercise their discretion over whether, when and if to use competition. In those circumstances, the measures give for the first time, because of the sector-specific regulator, the ability to decide which services will be exempt from competition altogether—something that does not exist as a result of Labour’s legislation. That is one reason why so many hon. Members in this House are concerned about the impact of competition—because they are seeing the NHS being exposed to competition under the 2006 Act. This Bill will sort those defects out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

What I heard the hon. Gentleman set out was a rehearsal of the interrelationship that exists between the NHS Commissioning Board and Monitor, particularly in the area of setting NHS tariffs and prices. For the first time, as a result of this legislation, there will be greater transparency and requirements about consultation in the design of those tariffs. At the moment, that process is obscured within the bowels of the Department of Health without accountability or public scrutiny. For the first time, this Bill puts that on a footing that ensures that transparency. As a result, it will produce much better tariff design for the future.

On Monitor’s role as the regulator of foundation trusts, it is important to be clear about this important part of the legislation. Foundation trusts will remain the principal providers of NHS services. The Government do not expect that to change. Monitor must therefore be able to continue operating a compliance regime transparently to assess and manage the risks, intervening proactively to address problems where necessary. The Bill is designed to reflect this and for Monitor to protect patients’ interests by regulating foundation trusts so that they continue to be able to provide NHS services in line with their principal purpose. Where Monitor identifies significant risk to a foundation trust’s continued ability to provide NHS services, the Bill provides Monitor with powers to intervene proactively to ensure that the risk is addressed. The Government agreed amendments in the House of Lords to clarify that further. In particular, the amendments clarify that Monitor’s powers to direct foundation trusts to do, or not to do, things to maintain essential standards of governance, or to ensure their continued ability to provide NHS services, will not be transitional powers. We accept that that previously was not as clear as it needed to be and we have made it clear.

We think that the Bill has been improved as a result of the amendments that were made in the House of Lords in that regard. Under clause 94 in the latest version of the Bill, Monitor’s enduring powers will include the power to set and enforce requirements specifically on foundation trusts to ensure that they are well governed. Monitor does that now and those requirements will need to be differentiated for foundation trusts to reflect their unique role and legal status as public benefit corporations financed by the taxpayer with a principal purpose defined in statute as being

“to provide goods and services for the purposes”

of the NHS. Monitor will also have enduring powers to set and enforce requirements on foundation trusts to ensure that they remain financially viable and to protect NHS assets. These measures deal with one of the concerns that has often been rehearsed about the privatisation of the NHS. The Bill does not provide that opportunity, but it provides for the protection of NHS assets. Those are necessary conditions of a foundation trust’s continuing ability to provide NHS services; they are not transitional issues.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification about reports that have been made available as a result of freedom of information requests indicating that senior officials of Monitor have been meeting on a regular basis with representatives of the private health care consultancy, McKinsey. Is the Minister aware of the nature of those discussions and do they have any relevance to the assurances that have been given at the Dispatch Box that there is no conspiracy to privatise the health service?

[Paul Burstow]

Absolutely not; the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which had a substantial exposé in The Mail on Sunday, really do not bear as close an examination as he would like of them. We know that the relationship that existed in terms of contracting McKinsey to provide services was one that the previous Government engaged in far more freely than the current Administration. The amounts that this Government have contracted and the nature of the relationships that this Government have are far smaller.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend’s point seems to have upset some hon. Members, but it was entirely—

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Burstow]

Let me at least do my hon. Friend the courtesy of answering his point before taking another intervention.

It is absolutely right to make the point about the use of those resources. Indeed, that has been one of the benefits of the system, as we have seen in the performance that some of the trusts that have had historically high caps have delivered in NHS services. However, it is worth noting that it is not just in relation to foundation trusts that there have been concerns about caps, because NHS trusts have never had caps, and it has been entirely possible for NHS trusts to increase their income without any of the constraints or controls that foundation trusts have found themselves under. The Labour party, in crafting its manifesto, seemed to have understood that, but it has now decided to run away from that in order to paint a picture about privatisation that is not part of this legislation.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to do just that. First and foremost, I want to be absolutely clear that local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that local healthwatch arrangements are put in place. The Lords amendments do not change that one iota, and they do not in any way weaken the statutory functions conferred upon local healthwatch organisations. Nor do they enable local authorities in some way to limit, restrict or censor what local healthwatch organisations can do. Indeed, we tabled amendments to ensure there are better safeguards in relation to how local authorities carry out their role. The Secretary of State will be able to publish guidance relating to potential conflicts of interest between a local authority and its local healthwatch organisation, to which both sides must have regard. We have provided for HealthWatch England to make recommendations in that respect, but to be absolutely clear, local healthwatch has a statutory basis. All that has changed is that we want to enable local decisions about whether it is a social enterprise, a voluntary organisation or another format.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister clarify that point and the issue raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? One Lords amendment allows a local authority to commission a community interest company, charity or other form of social enterprise that meets the prescribed criteria to be the local healthwatch for its area, and allows local healthwatch to make arrangements with others to carry out its functions—it effectively allows local healthwatch to delegate its functions to a community interest company. How does that address the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman? How would an individual constituent have their interests represented through a local healthwatch if it is no longer a statutory body?

[Paul Burstow]

The point is that the body will discharge a number of statutory functions. The models that the hon. Gentleman describes—community interest companies and other forms of mutual or social enterprise—are exactly the sort of organisations that are likely to engage more effectively with community interests and bring in a wider range of them. That is why we want that flexibility in the organisational form, against a set of criteria to safeguard the interests of the public. The public can tailor those organisational forms to meet the needs of their local community. That corporate envelope does not guarantee anything; the legislation still provides a statutory basis.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

We have had a good debate so far, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing it and on providing an opportunity for us to draw attention to radiotherapy services in the NHS. I want to try to answer as many questions as I can. I understand that my hon. Friend will meet Department officials to discuss some of her concerns further. I hope that if any issues are not covered, they can be explored further there.

Radiotherapy is an extremely important form of treatment for cancer, which often does not get the attention it deserves. This debate has, I think, helped in that regard. It is more targeted than chemotherapy and less invasive than surgery, with new, faster and more precise technologies reducing side-effects and improving outcomes for patients. Radiotherapy is a significant component in the treatment of 40% of patients cured of cancer and for 16% of cures overall. It is also extremely cost-effective in comparison to other curative cancer treatments. Spending is at around £325 million a year—just 5% of the total spend on cancer.

For these reasons, I very much welcome the opportunity presented by this debate to correct a number of inaccuracies that have appeared in the press on this subject. Claims have been made that patients are being denied life-saving treatments because of the lack of access to CyberKnife. Those claims are both inaccurate and alarming, and I think they must cause great anxiety to patients. The truth is that CyberKnife is not a form of treatment, but a brand name of a particular type of equipment that delivers stereotactic body radiotherapy or SBRT. It is not the only technology available, as I shall explain further in a moment.

My hon. Friend talked about the figures, and I repeat the fact that one in four radiotherapy centres currently has equipment—not CyberKnife in every case—that is capable of providing SBRT. I understand, and this bears out my hon. Friend’s figures—

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Burstow]

No. Many points have been put to me, and to be fair, I now need to respond to them.

Currently, eight centres are active in providing these services, but I recognise and appreciate the work my hon. Friend has done, and we will certainly need to review carefully the information she has presented tonight.

CyberKnife can deliver only SBRT and cannot deliver conventional radiotherapy. Large, expensive radiotherapy delivery systems such as these are purchased by public tender. After vigorous and rigorous evaluation of the many different systems available to deliver this treatment, many hospitals around the country have chosen systems provided by other manufacturers, as they enable them to provide flexible, accurate and cost-effective radiotherapy and radio-surgery services. The promotion of CyberKnife over other alternatives does a disservice to other manufacturers that are successful in providing equipment to trusts, and distorts the nature of the debate.

Let me be clear: timely access to high-quality radiotherapy for cancer patients in this country should improve cancer outcomes and survival. That is why we have made a commitment to expand radiotherapy capacity by investing about £150 million more over the next four years. That will increase the utilisation of existing equipment, support additional services and ensure that all high-priority patients with a need for proton-beam therapy get access to it abroad.

Significant progress has been made in improving radiotherapy services since the publication of the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group report in 2007. The collection of the radiotherapy dataset, which the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) talked about, has enabled us to establish more accurately than ever before the measure of the number of patients being treated with radiotherapy, and to identify and address unacceptable and inexplicable variations around the country. Almost all patients referred for radiotherapy treatment receive that treatment within the waiting time standards. This improvement in waiting times, compared with historical waiting times, saves lives each year. New modelling tools have been developed that allow local services to model the needs of their populations and to predict demand and ensure that they have capacity to treat all patients who will benefit from the treatment without unnecessary delay as demand changes over the years.

However, there can be absolutely no room for complacency, and we realise that more work needs to be done to identify why the variations that the hon. Member for Easington has talked about in terms of referral rates in some parts of the country have existed. The dataset shows that some variations in access rates between cancer networks persist, and there is currently lower uptake in certain parts of the north that cannot be explained by variations in cancer incidence. That new dataset allows local commissioners to examine their referral practices in detail, and I understand that networks in the north-east are looking at capacity and travel times to start to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House tonight.

Access to advanced radiotherapy techniques needs to be improved, particularly intensity modulated radiotherapy. Experts estimate that around a third of all treatments given with the intention of cure should be delivered by IMRT. Some centres are already delivering at that rate, but many are far below it. All centres have equipment that is capable of delivering that technique and a national training programme has been rolled out. We now need to ensure that IMRT, as well as image guided radiotherapy, is offered to all patients who might benefit.

As we have heard, radiotherapy treatment involves the delivery of a dose of radiation to a cancer tumour. That dose is delivered to each patient in fractions or treatments and the number of fractions delivered varies with the type of cancer. The ultimate goal in radiotherapy is to deliver the treatment to the tumour with pinpoint accuracy, thus sparing surrounding tissue and requiring as few fractions, or treatments, as possible—in other words, to treat and cure more cancers with shorter courses of radiotherapy and fewer side effects. For that reason, radiotherapy is continuously evolving with innovations and the development of new techniques and technologies that move us increasingly closer to that goal, but those new developments need to be evaluated in clinical studies.

It is a challenge for providers and commissioners to keep up with the evolving nature of radiotherapy treatment and to ensure the evaluation and adoption of new techniques. The royal colleges and other professional bodies provide guidance to their members to assist the continuous update of clinical practice. Commissioners in turn need to ensure that they are aware of sources of updated guidance. The radiotherapy community in this country can be rightly proud of its ability to deliver clinical studies and explore the use of delivering radiotherapy in fewer fractions. Indeed, the role of the Royal College of Radiologists and the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group in producing such guidance is absolutely crucial.

Let me come back to stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is an important example of specialist radiotherapy technique. It allows radiotherapy to be given to smaller target areas in higher doses with fewer treatments. Its greatest potential is in its possible use as an alternative to surgery and, because of its precision, to treat and potentially cure cancers that would otherwise be untreatable. However, as has been mentioned, it is regarded as a novel technique and it provides a very high dose of radiation per treatment. With conventional radiotherapy, a patient might receive their dose over 20 to 25 visits, but with SBRT that dose is delivered in five or six. More treatments need to be delivered within clinical studies so that clinicians can carefully follow up in both the short and long term to confirm the efficacy of the treatment and study any side effects. Side effects have been mentioned in the context of drugs, but we need to be conscious that there can also be side effects from radiotherapy and not be so anxious to expose people to risks if we are not confident. We should apply the standards of clinical trials to this area. It would be wrong for this Government to promote any form of treatment before the evidence has been collected. Evidence is about more than just making speeches in the House—it is also about looking at the clinical evidence.

All new techniques, including advanced radiotherapy, need to be justified on the grounds of cost and clinical effectiveness. Last year, the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group, published guidance, which has been mentioned, on the use of SBRT, including a clinical evidence review, and concluded that there is a substantial evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of SBRT in early stage lung cancer for patients who are unsuitable for surgery.

There are about 1,000 patients in the country who would benefit from that sort of procedure. There are ongoing clinical trials examining the use of the technique for other cancers, but they have yet to confirm its benefits for those cancers. For that reason, the national radiotherapy implementation group recommended that any patient receiving SBRT should receive it in a clinical study to enable the evidence to grow, and at specialised centres treating high volumes of patients with the necessary quality assurance safeguards in place. The implementation of the recommendations cannot be rushed, and the welfare of patients should be paramount in the introduction and use of novel techniques. Staff must therefore be thoroughly trained in this technique.

My hon. Friend asked me to consider a number of issues. I will certainly undertake to examine the tariff programme to establish what more can be done to expedite it, but I should point out that it is no small task to introduce new tariffs in the NHS. In 2012-13 we are mandating the use of the necessary resource groups and currencies in regard to contracting for external beam radiotherapy, and that is an essential first step. I hope that when my hon. Friend has a chance to sit down with officials, they will be able to talk in more detail about the work that is being undertaken to make progress with the implementation of tariffs.

It is possible that there will be a significant increase in demand for this treatment in the coming decades, but many tumours will continue to be treated better with conventional radiotherapy, and in particular with intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy techniques.

Southern Cross Care Homes

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

Yes.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

There seems to be a measure of agreement among Members on both sides of the House about the need for proper regulation, oversight and management of these homes. Will the Minister therefore take the opportunity to dissociate himself from the remarks made and position adopted by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on 7 January 2004? He moved an Opposition motion deploring the then Labour Government’s

“over-prescriptive, expensive and bureaucratic regulation of the care home sector”—[Official Report, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 324.]

That statement is reminiscent of the neanderthal, neo-Conservative approach adopted by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his remarks on deregulating the banking sector.

[Paul Burstow]

I am going to stay focused on the welfare and interests of the residents of these homes, and we will have those political debates on another occasion.

Breast Cancer Screening (Young Women)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Paul Burstow

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Paul Burstow]

Yes. It is entirely right for the hon. Gentleman to make that point. That is why this Government will publish the first ever NHS outcomes framework, which will focus much more clearly on how we ensure that the system delivers the right outcomes in terms of cancer survival. We will publish that shortly, along with a new cancer reform strategy in due course that will say even more.

The Government’s view at present is that the risks of the change proposed by the hon. Lady outweigh the benefits. However, I want to ensure that the evidence that she has discussed is properly evaluated by officials in the Department. We will consider those points and her representations carefully, and I will write to her after we have had an opportunity to do so. However, the Department’s view and the Government’s view about maintaining the status quo is shared by most countries in Europe, as well as the Council of Europe, which recommends a breast cancer screening age of 50 to 69. The United States recommends screening every two years for women aged between 50 and 74. The position that this country has adopted for a considerable time is based on international practice and the best available evidence. One must be open to changes in evidence; that is important in an evidence-based approach to developing policy.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On best practice and targeting available resources, the figures suggest that in some areas, as many as one third of women within the target group aged 50 to 70 do not attend routine screenings. There are various reasons for that. It might have to do with misconceptions about the nature of the screening test. In some urban areas, it might have to do with the fact that there is a large transient population. In my area, where we also have the problem of people failing to turn up for routine appointments, they may be reluctant or poorly educated, or a number of—

[Grahame M. Morris]

I apologise. The Minister will see the point that I am trying to make.

[Paul Burstow]

I understand fully. Today, the Secretary of State will make a statement in the House setting out this Government’s new commitments on public health and the clear lines that we are drawing on tackling health inequalities. Some of the issues clearly involve a social gradient that we must address, and we will address them in our new cancer reform strategy and public health White Paper.