Contaminated Blood Products

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I will do my best, Mr Owen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing this debate; she is a consistent champion of this issue. Many other colleagues present have also done so much important work over many years on this difficult and tragic topic.

During the ’70s, ’80s and early ’90s, many individuals were sadly infected with hepatitis C, HIV, or both, from NHS-supplied blood or blood products before effective donor screening tests were introduced. To this day, many people continue to be affected by the grievous outcome of their earlier treatment, so it is right that the matter is given our attention and collaborative consideration. I know that I will not be able to satisfy all the points raised by the hon. Member for South Down, but I hope that I can at least give the House a very keen sense of how much I share the desire to move towards a better outcome and a conclusion.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister plan to address the subject of drugs? Can she put a rocket up the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to get that part of the business in order?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I do intend to touch on new treatments, because that is one aspect of the landscape in this policy area that has changed profoundly for the better in recent years. I am also always happy to follow up on any issues with colleagues.

I know how much interest there is in this issue, as demonstrated by the presence of so many Members today. Many Members have heard from constituents, as have I, of the significant and devastating impact of this tragic matter on their lives. Successive Governments of all complexions have looked at and wrestled with this difficult issue. I have spoken directly to affected individuals and families and I read many letters—every single one that is sent to me—detailing people’s concerns and frustrations with the current schemes of support and the situation in general.

I assure Members that the matter of infected blood and the reform of the payment schemes continues to be a priority for me. I meet regularly with my officials in the Department of Health, including over the summer, to maintain progress towards a better outcome. As I indicated in my statement before the recess, the Government are considering the provision of future financial assistance, and other support for those affected, within the context of the spending review and in a way that is sustainable for the future. It does need to be sustainable.

We will be consulting to help develop the shape and structure of any new scheme. Members know that, and we have said that before. I appreciate and share the frustration that we have not been able to move to publish a date. I cannot give Members a date today, but we still intend to consult as soon as possible.

[Ms Ritchie]

It is vital that the Minister gives us a date for the commencement of the consultation today. We are talking about a life and death issue for many, many people. I know the Minister appreciates that, but she has to understand that a date is the most compelling requirement, along with the compensation and access to drugs.

[Jane Ellison]

I am well aware of that fact, and I do not casually say that I cannot give a specific date today. The consultation will take place before the end of the year, as we have previously committed to. We are working on the detail of that, but I cannot give Members a specific date today. It is an absolute priority to bring it forward. The area is complex, both legally and in its proximity to the spending review, but we have made that commitment.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

Not if it is on the same topic. I have said what I can today, and I have also said that I will inform Members as soon as I can when we have a date for the consultation. I have done everything in my power to keep Members informed on the issue, and I will continue to do so.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

In addition to a full, fair and final resolution to the issue, the victims also need clarity on access to drugs. Will the Minister clarify why NHS England has made access to drugs more complicated than it is in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the networks of hospitals? Why is that required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I will come on to drugs and access to drugs, although perhaps not quite in the detail that my hon. Friend seeks. I will now make progress and not take any interventions for a while to ensure that I get to the points that Members have raised.

Suffice it to say, I was strongly aware, as I was present for most of the urgent question on 17 July, that access to treatment is uppermost in Members’ minds. Considerable time and attention is being given to the issue, and I will touch on it in my remarks. Following the consultation, we will take into account the views that we receive, and then look to work as quickly as possible to announce how the schemes will be reformed. Several thoughtful suggestions have already been made to me by MPs and patient representative groups on how we should approach the consultation. I am grateful for those suggestions, which I am considering carefully.

The Government are continuing to work with the devolved Administrations on the issue, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Down agrees that we should work as much as possible towards a four-nations approach. I suggest that, as part of that, it would be helpful if she shared her knowledge and insight with Ministers in Northern Ireland. We continue to do so at official level and we will ensure that appropriate ministerial exchanges happen.

While decisions have not yet been made on what the new scheme will look like, the House should be assured that, given the level of unhappiness with the existing schemes, we are considering root and branch changes, which I know is what campaigners are calling for. I would, however, like to be clear that while we are working to establish a full and fair resolution, liability has not been established in the majority of cases, so it would not be appropriate to talk about payments in terms of compensation, particularly on the scale that some campaigners and colleagues envisage. I know that Members are not happy with that, but I need to say that for the record. We will continue to fund ex-gratia payments, but we will look to reshape those following consultation. It is my hope that, pending decisions after the consultation, transition to a new scheme can begin from April 2016.

While many individuals may feel frustrated at the expected timescale for scheme reform, it is important that we take time to get things right, because we need suitable and lasting changes. That includes identifying all the complexities involved in making changes to a system of support such as this, and the need in due course to consider consultation responses.

As colleagues have mentioned, in March 2015, the Prime Minister announced that up to £25 million would be allocated to support transition to a reformed scheme. As previously stated, I confirm that we do not intend to use that for the administrative costs that might be associated with reform of the existing schemes. We expect to announce our plans for that money once we have a better understanding of what the wider scheme reform might comprise. If it is necessary to roll that money into the next financial year, we will do so.

The announcement by the Prime Minister on the allocation of the £25 million came on the day the Penrose inquiry final report was published. I am aware that many campaigners have written to their MPs regarding the Government’s response to Penrose. We have fulfilled our commitment to implement the recommendation in the Penrose report to take

“all reasonable steps to offer an HCV test to everyone…who had a blood transfusion before September 1991 and who has not been tested for HCV”

by reminding GPs, nurses and other clinical staff of the matter, along with the NHS guidance to offer a hepatitis C test to those at risk. I can give Members details if they are interested in how we have done that. Those reminders will act to ensure that awareness is significantly increased across England and will help to identify anyone who is currently unaware that they may have been infected with hepatitis C. However, the House should be reassured that look-back exercises took place in 1991 and 1995 to try to identify those individuals, so I would not expect the recent action to result in significantly increased uptake of hepatitis C testing.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I refer the Minister to the report by the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which my colleague the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) chairs. It was an extremely comprehensive report. We heard from many hundreds of victims on how to reform the trusts and funds. Will the Minister make a commitment that, when she has some timeline details, she will make a ministerial statement on the Floor of the House of Commons, so that Members will be able to question her?

[Jane Ellison]

I have done my best to ensure that the House and individual Members are kept informed at all times. I have had a number of individual Member meetings. I will touch on this again, but I will of course look to keep the House informed on all important timelines, as we have to date. The all-party group, to whose comprehensive report my hon. Friend rightly referred, has informed our thinking, but there has never been a public consultation on any aspect of scheme reform. No Government have done that before, so this will be the first time that any formal public consultation has been undertaken.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

No. I will touch on the issue of drugs, and if there is time afterwards, I will take another intervention.

Many Members are aware that a new generation of promising drug treatments is emerging that has the potential to offer an effective cure for many patients with hepatitis C. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued guidance recommending two of the drugs earlier this year, and those are now routinely available on the NHS for eligible patients. NICE is developing guidance on three further treatments and has recently consulted on draft guidance. NHS England announced in June that it has made £190 million available this year so that patients with confirmed cirrhosis from hepatitis C can benefit from the new treatment options. In previous debates, I have offered advice to Members on how constituents who are worried that they are not getting access to those options, yet meet the clinical guidelines, can get access. In particular, it is important that patients to talk to their hepatologist.

We estimate that around 550 individuals infected with hepatitis C through historical treatment with NHS-supplied blood and blood products can now access the new treatments under the NHS’s interim commissioning policies. As the Secretary of State committed to on 25 March, the Department of Health is continuing to work to bring transparency to the matter of infected blood. The documents covering the period from 1970 to 1985 have been published in line with the Freedom of Information Act, and are available on the National Archives website. The Department is completing the transfer of the documents that we hold for 1986 to 1995 to the National Archives. Once those have been handed over, the National Archives will need to take the records on to its systems and make them available on its “Discovery” website. As to the precise date, we had hoped that it would be this summer, but for technical reasons the National Archives has indicated that it anticipates the documents being made available on its website after the January 2016 releases. I stress that that is only for technical reasons associated with the transfer of the documents.

I appreciate the House’s frustration and I am sorry that I will not be able to let the hon. Member for South Down back in to respond at the end. I understand the sense of urgency and the need for change. In hoping to reach a conclusion as soon as is practicable, I have, through the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), offered parliamentarians a meeting ahead of the consultation so that I can hear their concerns and suggestions and so that they can contribute to shaping scheme reform.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Infected Blood

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend Lord Prior of Brampton has made the following written ministerial statement.

Before 1991, thousands of patients contracted HIV, hepatitis C, or both viruses, from treatment with NHS-supplied blood or blood products. This is aptly described by many as one of the great tragedies of modern health care and on the 25 March 2015 the Prime Minister apologised on behalf of the Government to all those that were infected. I would like to start by repeating this sentiment and state, on behalf of this Government, how sorry we are for what happened and for the distress caused to those affected and their families.

In March, Lord Penrose published the report of his public inquiry into infections acquired in Scotland. As infection occurred before devolution, this is of relevance for the Westminster Government. Lord Penrose scrutinised events over a period of nearly 18 years between 1974-91. The report, together with over 5,000 documents from the period 1970-85 which have already been published by Government, provides a comprehensive picture of events and decisions made. We have also committed to releasing all additional documents from 1986-95 late this summer.

Lord Penrose made one recommendation: to take all reasonable steps to offer a hepatitis C test to everyone (in Scotland) who had a blood transfusion before September 1991 and who has not been tested for hepatitis C. In England, guidance to GPs has been issued over the years by the Department of Health, the NHS, and other health organisations which recommend that a hepatitis C test should be offered to patients who received a blood transfusion in the UK before 1991 or were treated with blood products before 1986. This can currently be found on the NHS Choices website. In light of Lord Penrose’s recommendation, the Department will be acting to ensure that GPs are reminded of this duty.

The terms of reference of the Penrose inquiry did not include financial support for those affected. However for some time we have been listening to the many concerns about the existing arrangements and have been considering how we might improve that support. Concerns have been raised by individuals that have been affected, MPs, and the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and include: the complex nature of the organisations, and the criteria for, and charitable nature of, some payments. I would therefore like to briefly acknowledge the work of all the MPs who have raised the profile of this tragedy. Most significantly, however, I would like to recognise the work of affected individuals, and their representatives, who have tirelessly campaigned for many years.

On 25 March the Prime Minister also announced that £25 million would be allocated to ease transition to a reformed system of support for affected individuals. While no decisions have yet been made on how this money will be spent, I must emphasise that the money will not be used for administrative costs, but will be used appropriately to support any transitional arrangements once we have consulted on how a new scheme might be structured.

Transition to a reformed scheme remains a priority for this Government. Decisions on the overall DOH budget from 2016-17 onwards will be determined as part of the forthcoming spending review.

While I understand that beneficiaries to the current schemes may be frustrated by this wait, this is an extremely complex and sensitive area and any reform plans must be carefully considered before a consultation can be launched.

[HCWS146]

Health Provision (South Gloucestershire)

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Westminster Hall

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

As ever, Mr Hollobone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is my first Westminster Hall debate of the new Parliament; I responded in the last Westminster Hall debate of the last Parliament. It is nice to be back responding to a debate. It is nice to respond to a debate from my esteemed colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), and my new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), but I am sorry that we are revisiting themes that have been much discussed, both in private and in debates in the Chamber. My hon. Friends are, as ever, doughty champions for their local healthcare system. It is fair to say at the outset that I share some of their exasperation with regard to the timings that they expressed. I will revisit some of the history of the health service reconfiguration in the area and respond to the specific points they made.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke on securing the debate and my other hon. Friends for coming to the Chamber and responding to the issues that were raised. This is a matter of long-standing importance—perhaps too long-standing, which is the thrust of what has been said today. I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends in saying that whatever the frustrations with the administration of healthcare in their local area, we have nothing but praise for the NHS staff who assiduously look after our constituents day in, day out.

The Bristol health services plan is the background to much of the issue. As my hon. Friends will be aware, the local NHS in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire agreed the Bristol health services plan, which was a 10-year strategic plan to modernise and improve healthcare services across the area. It was the basis for developing a series of integrated proposals, including a new acute hospital for north Bristol and South Gloucestershire on the Southmead site, which opened in May 2014 following the transfer of acute service from Frenchay; and the new community healthcare facilities in South Gloucestershire, including the plan for a community hospital on the Frenchay site. In addition, the plans included the centralisation of some surgical specialties across the city, in a pattern now familiar to those following NHS reform, to concentrate specialisms and excellence at certain sites.

In 2010, the South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust presented its emerging themes proposals for the development of a health and social care centre at Frenchay with community in-patient facilities, but the trust did not really deal with the affordability of those proposals in any detail. Indeed, it was noted at the time that there was no new funding available for the project and that it would require reinvestment of existing resources.

A business case was subsequently developed by North Bristol NHS Trust in 2011 for Frenchay, resulting in proposals that were considered unaffordable in the context of the financial challenges faced by the local NHS. In addition, those proposals would have limited the scope for the development of new community-based services in the long term. The commissioners made it clear that further work was required to ensure that the model for the delivery of services was in line with best practice.

One of the frustrations about a situation that has developed over such a long period is that it is overtaken by new models of care, and this whole debate is overshadowed by the fact that the Keogh review of urgent and emergency care, which aims to establish the ideal model for delivering that care, is relevant. Moreover, there are emerging best practice NHS views about how we provide community care and how different models work. As I say, one of the frustrations about a situation developing over such a long period, and which has been subject to delay, is that it tends to be reinforced because new models of care emerge all the time, which require plans to be revisited. That has been one of the sources of frustration.

It was against that backdrop that a major review of rehabilitation services was launched, in conjunction with local commissioners. The review of rehabilitation and reablement services across Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire commenced in October 2012, with involvement from both NHS and local authority providers. Significant progress was made in agreeing a clear and consistent vision for that future model, which was largely a service-focused response built on the involvement of a number of local stakeholders. South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group developed a detailed local model of care for rehabilitation in August 2013, building on the rehabilitation and reablement review.

The implementation of that model of care began in 2013 in a phased approach, and there have been a number of developments to date in relation to the review. For example, rehabilitation community beds were located at Elgar house on the Southmead site and at Thornbury hospital. I must stress, however, that these are interim arrangements until long-term plans for community beds at Frenchay and Thornbury are put in place. I have already mentioned the frustration about timings, and that frustration was expressed during the debate. However, it is the current position that these are interim arrangements.

Further developments include the new community rehabilitation and reablement beds that have been commissioned in local care homes, with new in-reach support services in place for individuals in these residential rehabilitation beds, and additional community reablement services have also been commissioned.

What is the current position? Over the past 10 years, many of the proposals in the Bristol health services plan have been implemented, together with a number of major additional developments. It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke speak about the new state-of-the-art hospital at Southmead, although there have been challenges in some areas. There is also a new community health care facility in Yate, which he also referred to, as well as a new NHS independent sector treatment centre in Emersons Green.

In addition to those developments, a £19.6 million refurbishment of Cossham hospital has been completed. The hospital reopened in 2013 with the area’s first midwife-led birth centre. My hon. Friend will be aware that Cossham hospital had originally been due to close, so was not part of the proposals in the Bristol health services plan. That is, if you like, a gain on what was originally proposed, and one that I know has been welcomed.

Over the past two years, local clinicians have continued to lead the major transformation programme for rehabilitation services. I am assured that providers, patients, members of the public and other stakeholders have been extensively involved in that programme. I very much hope that other stakeholders, including MPs, are involved. I often say in debates such as this one that it is absolutely essential that local NHS commissioners, including CCGs, work closely with MPs. It is often forgotten that MPs are a first point of contact for people who are concerned about the process of reform, whether they are frustrated by the timing of the process or worried about its relative opaqueness.

South Gloucestershire CCG has confirmed that it has made significant progress towards implementing that programme, which includes providing community beds in local care homes with in-reach support from NHS teams. As part of the next major transformation of rehabilitation services, in March, the CCG began procurement for services that are expected to lead to the redevelopment of the Frenchay and Thornbury hospital sites. As my hon. Friend said, the timetable published with these plans describes a procurement process that is expected to result in the award of a contract by March 2016. This is a good opportunity to provide an integrated health and social care development on the Frenchay site.

I understand the frustrations that are felt locally, including by my hon. Friends who are here today, about some of the timings involved. The CCG has confirmed that it understands the concerns felt by some members of the community. I will follow up this debate by writing to the CCG and asking it for more detail about the timings, because I am concerned to hear talk of 2018 or 2019. At first glance, it is quite hard to get one’s head round that timetable, so I will follow up by asking for more detail, and I will report back. This is a complex project, involving a lot of partner organisations that are co-ordinating multiple developments across a number of sites. Nevertheless, we need to have a bit more detail about how the timetable might slip by one year and potentially by another year.

The CCG has confirmed that it is determined to deliver transformed services that meet future health needs in line with current best practice, but any plan needs to be financially affordable. As I have already said, we need to ensure that plans are not constantly overtaken by new models, although the model based on best practice is much more settled than previous models and is in line with recent NHS England thinking and the five-year forward view, which is a very helpful road map for the health service for the next five years and which everything else relates to.

Regarding the minor injury unit plans, as my hon. Friend knows, South Gloucestershire CCG has decided to revisit those plans to take account of local evidence about their impact on accident and emergency attendances. Those plans are looking at key themes emerging from Sir Bruce Keogh’s national review of urgent and emergency care. That work is ongoing, but it is reshaping the way that the NHS thinks about urgent and emergency care, and it influences all the models of care that are being considered, with patient care at its heart. I can understand why the CCG believes that enhancing primary care services would help to improve urgent care services for the whole population, but what is needed is clarity about that process and about how it will be assessed.

Last October, following a period of engagement with the public, proposals were put forward and it was agreed that they would be developed on a pilot basis with the GP practice-based injury services described by my hon. Friend. The CCG is working with local GPs and community providers to agree detailed plans, but in my follow-up letter to the CCG after this debate I will ask for more information about those plans and the process of assessment for that pilot, which will feed into any final decision that is made. That work will include further discussions with local GP practices, but I will stress in my communication to the CCG that it must involve detailed discussion with local MPs, particularly when those MPs have been so assiduous in following this process, not just through one Parliament but now into a second Parliament. It is absolutely vital that my hon. Friends are kept informed and involved.

Subject to successful completion of that work by the CCG, plans are expected to be presented for approval to the September meeting of its governing body. I stress that a formal decision in relation to the previous plans for a minor injuries unit at Cossham hospital will be made once the proposed pilot scheme has been evaluated. Subject to the details being agreed, the pilot scheme is expected to commence in late 2015 and it will run for a minimum of 12 months, with evaluation that will include consideration of feedback from patients. Again, I expect local MPs to be closely involved in that process.

A number of challenges have been made to me, and hon. Friends have asked me to follow up on them. I will look to see where I can do so. More generally, as we have discussed before in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, it is the responsibility of local NHS organisations to determine how local services are delivered. They are best placed to understand the needs of the people they serve, but what this process has drawn out is that over time those needs can change and evolve, and our understanding of how best to respond to them must change and evolve. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that we are at all times moving forward, because local people do not really understand why things seem to be endlessly put into review and re-examined.

NHS England has rightly placed more emphasis in recent times on how it can provide support to parts of the system that are struggling to make progress at a pace that we would all recognise as ideal. Part of my follow-up to this debate will be to ask whether NHS England can provide any extra support to help to ensure that there is a clear timetable, which is well understood and which everyone can talk to their local community about. I will do that in my follow-up, and I will write to all three of my hon. Friends after this debate. As ever, I commend them for their interest in this subject, and I hope that we can see considerable progress in the early years of this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered health provision in South Gloucestershire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

11. Whether his Department has discussed with the Dorset clinical commissioning group the provision of accident and emergency services in Dorset; and if he will make a statement.

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

I understand that Dorset CCG is reviewing the provision of healthcare across the county under its clinical services review, and that includes emergency services. Obviously, any changes to services must be clinically led, in the best interests of patients and, certainly for acute services, in line with the principles of the Keogh review.

[Mr Chope]

In that case, will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government do not support the CCG’s bizarre proposal to close 450 beds at the Royal Bournemouth hospital and force 40,000 in-patients each year to go to Poole general hospital?

[Jane Ellison]

I understand that the process is not even halfway through—the CCG’s plans are about to enter the consultation phase—and I would expect my hon. Friend, along with other Dorset MPs, to be engaged with that. I would be disappointed if they felt that they had not been so engaged. However, the House might be interested to know about just one of the proposed improvements. There is currently no 24/7 consultant cover anywhere in Dorset, and the proposed improvement plan aims to correct that.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What changes in funding he plans to make to address the NHS funding shortfall forecast in NHS England’s most recent “Five Year Forward View”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of guidance from the chief medical officer on the consumption of alcohol by pregnant women.

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

We know that too many women may be unaware of the health risks from drinking during pregnancy. The chief medical officer’s review of the alcohol guidelines—the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have spoken about it—includes consideration of the Government’s advice on drinking during pregnancy. The UK chief medical officers are meeting to discuss this in September, and we expect to consult on the new guidance in the autumn.

[Bill Esterson]

I thank the Minister for her answer and remind Members that 7,000 children are damaged every year from irreversible brain damage as a result of alcohol consumed by their mothers during pregnancy. I urge the Minister please to clear up the confusion in the advice available to pregnant women at the moment, which on the one hand says, “Do not drink at all”; and on the other hand says, “If you do drink, have only one or two units”.

[Jane Ellison]

The message is actually very clear, as we have labelling on over 90% of bottles. As the hon. Gentleman knows from the debates we have had on the subject, it is a difficult area and there is no consistent evidence of adverse effects from low to moderate pre-natal alcohol consumption. I have talked this through with the chief medical officer: we have to get the balance right between warning women and responding to the important stats the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, without causing unnecessary worry for the around 50% of women who do not plan their pregnancy and might have drunk alcohol before they realised they were pregnant.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

14. What steps the Government are taking to improve support for children and young people with mental health problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

T2. Part of my constituency is served by Eastbourne District General Hospital, which is run by East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. The trust was recently deemed “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission. Residents are obviously concerned, and both East Sussex County Council and Polegate Town Council have gone on record as saying that they have lost confidence in the hospital’s management. Will the Minister look into the matter urgently, in order to reassure my constituents?

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

My hon. Friend has been an extremely active champion of healthcare services for her local community, and I congratulate her on continuing to raise this matter. The CQC is due to publish the findings of its latest inspection of the NHS trust shortly, and we expect the trust to work closely with the regulators to deal with the concern that has been expressed. I know that there is concern locally, and I believe that Polegate Town Council will be discussing the matter soon.

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

We have heard a number of fair questions from Opposition Members, and, I am afraid, nothing but woeful and inadequate answers from Ministers so far. Let me try again by asking the Secretary of State about GPs. As we have already heard, before the election he promised that there would be an additional 5,000 GPs by 2020. However, now that the election is over, he says that that promise requires “some flexibility”, and he was similarly evasive in an earlier answer. Given that there is, in the words of the Government’s own taskforce, a “GP work force crisis”, will the Secretary of State now clear things up? By 2020, will there be 5,000 extra GPs—on today’s figures—as he promised, or is this yet another example of the Conservatives not being straight with people on the NHS?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T5. Following my fourth Adjournment debate on the future of Public Health England at Porton Down two weeks ago, I remain concerned about value for money for the taxpayer. Will the Minister confirm that she has assessed the full value of the life sciences work at Porton Down to the United Kingdom economy, and that she remains committed to maximising the site’s potential regardless of the outcome?

[Jane Ellison]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing so many Adjournment debates. Our most recent debate took place only a couple of weeks ago. He is right to continue to remind us of the contribution that the Porton Down site makes to the UK economy. I can assure him that the outline business case has been and is being scrutinised by Ministers, and that that includes an economic assessment. However, as I have said on previous occasions when we have debated the matter, Public Health England will remain committed to the site even if research staff are relocated.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

T6. What concrete steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase the number of GPs and ensure my constituents can be seen by one when they need to be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

T9. Given the proven link between poverty in childhood and ill health in adulthood, what advice has the Secretary of State given the Chancellor about not driving more children into poverty and ill health through cuts to tax credits?

[Jane Ellison]

We take the issue of childhood health extremely seriously. We want every child to have the best start in life. That is why, for example, we are bringing record numbers of health visitors into the health service and why health is now part of the troubled families programme. In my area of responsibility, public health, it is why we have taken measures on matters such as smoking that particularly affect children in deprived communities.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On adolescent mental care, capacity in my constituency can require lengthy in-patient care to be undertaken from Roehampton in south London. A constituent of mine makes regular visits to her young daughter making work impractical, but is unable to qualify for travel assistance as she is deemed physically able to work and does not qualify for benefits. As transport reimbursement is normally available only to those eligible for out-of-work benefits, will my right hon. Friend consider recommending widening the parameters to include those who have to travel outside their area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

A recent study suggests that the NHS is starting diabetics on insulin much later than in other countries. What will the Department do to address that issue?

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this important subject. As he knows, we are looking at care right across the diabetes pathway, with a view to building on the first ever at-scale national diabetes prevention programme. I will take up the issue he raises and look at it in the context of all the other aspects of diabetes care we are examining.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

Last week, Reeth medical centre in my constituency received an “outstanding” Care Quality Commission rating. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating it and recognise that small practices in rural areas are still an important part of our healthcare system?

Arm’s Length Bodies (Triennial Reviews)

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the start of the triennial reviews of the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Tissue Authority, and NHS Blood and Transplant.

The triennial review programme ensures that all Government Departments review their non-departmental public bodies on a regular basis. In order to ensure that the Department of Health is operating as an effective system steward and can be assured of all the bodies it is responsible for, it has extended the programme of reviews over the period 2014-17 to include all of its arm’s length bodies.

The reviews are conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine the continuing need for the function and whether the organisation’s form, including operating at arm’s length from Government, remains appropriate. If the outcome of this stage is that delivery should continue, the second stage of the review will assess whether the bodies are operating efficiently and in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

[HCWS57]

Health Council

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

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

The Health Council met in Luxembourg on 19 June 2015 as part of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) Council meetings. I represented the UK.

Medical devices

Member states agreed to a partial general approach on regulations concerning medical devices and in vitro medical devices. The compromise brokered by the Latvian presidency represents significant progress on this issue—after almost three years of negotiations—and paves the way for trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament and Commission once remaining work on the recitals (and certain technical aspects of the texts) is completed. Overall it was a very positive outcome for the UK, enhancing patient safety but ensuring pre-market scrutiny remains light-touch and clinically led, and that NHS in-house tests are exempted from most of the requirements of the regulations.

Alcohol strategy

Slovenia requested that the Commission produces a new alcohol strategy, given the growing problems caused by alcohol abuse and the need for EU-level action to support member states’ own efforts to tackle it. The UK joined many other countries which spoke in favour of this proposition, highlighting the sharp rise in alcohol-related deaths and the strain being put on vital public services. In response, the Commission—Health Commissioner Andriukaitis—committed to considering the issue further.

Migration

Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Malta introduced a paper on the health aspects of the migration crisis in the Mediterranean, highlighting the strain being put on their health systems. The Commission noted that 60 million euros had recently been allocated in emergency funding to assist them, but reiterated his call to member states to provide bilateral assistance through the EU’s civil protection mechanism. The UK acknowledged the health dimension of the crisis, and saluted the efforts of hard-pressed health professionals in front-line Mediterranean countries. Further, the UK emphasised the contribution of our armed forces in saving lives at sea, but also noted that the most effective solution remains addressing the root cause of the problem, and highlighted the work of DFID promoting stability and prosperity in source countries.

Diphtheria

Spain introduced an addition to the agenda concerning the recent discovery of its first case of Diphtheria in 28 years. The main issue is one of access to Diphtheria anti-toxin (DAT), which is now patchy across Europe. Speakers called on member states to work together to ensure that all have access to this treatment.

Luxembourg presidency

Luxembourg set out its priorities for its upcoming EU presidency, which begins on 1 July. These include innovation and personalised medicine, dementia, and cross-border healthcare. As mentioned above, Luxembourg will oversee the finalisation of the Council position on medical devices, and further work will also be undertaken on alcohol and lessons learnt from Ebola.

[HCWS56]

A&E Services

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

Time is rather short, but I want to start by acknowledging one or two things. First, it is nice to see at least one signatory to the Labour non-grandstanding pact present for the closing speeches, if not the opening ones.

More importantly, there were three maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) mentioned James Brown, and the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned The Pogues, so a musical theme has run through the debate. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) took us to the Scottish Riviera, via a wonderful Burns quote. We all enjoyed their maiden speeches very much. We also heard some thoughtful speeches from people with experience in the service.

I say to those who are new to the House that those of us who were here in the last Parliament have a sense of déjà vu about this debate and, indeed, the motion. We want to move on from that. The public gave us a mandate in the election based on our record on the NHS, our commitment to safeguard its future, our honesty in accepting the challenges that lie ahead and the need to find long-term solutions. A number of right hon. and hon. Members alluded to those challenges and solutions. The public saw through the Opposition’s tired attack at the election and realised that we were the party that was not only acknowledging the long-term pressures, but committing the resources that the NHS said it needed to continue to be the best health service in the world. That remains the big challenge for the Opposition.

As was said by the Chair of the Health Committee, whom I congratulate on her re-election, the election is behind us and we need to look forward; we need to look at the areas where there is consensus and remember the impact that debates in this House have on the wonderful staff in our NHS.

Let me put on the record what is happening in our accident and emergency services. The NHS in England achieved 94.9% of people in A&E being seen, treated and discharged in four hours. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who spoke for the SNP, underlined just what an achievement it is to deliver on those targets. We all enjoyed her thoughtful and measured contribution very much.

The change from weekly to monthly A&E performance reporting is based on the clinical advice of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, as other Members have said. Far from reducing transparency, the change will increase it because, from August, NHS England will publish the key NHS performance data together. That will include more frequent reporting of cancer waits—something that is widely welcomed by cancer charities. The change is not only clinically based, but is supported by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Nuffield Trust, the NHS Confederation and the Patients Association. The Opposition are way out of line with all those bodies in their criticisms of the change.

There has been talk of deficits in NHS providers. Of course that is cause for concern, but we are taking action on those deficits. As I said, during the general election campaign we talked about what we could do to address such long-term challenges. In opening the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) mentioned the specific measures that are being taken to address trusts’ deficits and help them get back into a better situation.

On GP access, the fact is that four out of five people are able to get an appointment when it is convenient. We are building on that by investing £175 million in extending GP access. By March next year, the Prime Minister’s challenge fund will cover 18 million people, who will get extended hours and weekend appointments if they need them.

We have heard from hon. Members that GPs and other health professionals are responding positively to the challenges that the circumstances have set them. I was interested to hear of the innovations that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) told us about in his area. We heard about the focus on increased access to mammography in Crawley. There were many other great examples of how the service is innovating.

To meet demand, we have 1,200 more GPs than in 2010. The Secretary of State spoke only last week about a new way forward for GPs and an increased focus on under-doctored areas. That came out in a number of contributions, including that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright).

Providing the funding to support the NHS’s “Five Year Forward View” has only been possible because of our long-term economic plan. We remain committed to listening to and supporting the NHS as it works through the detail of the delivery of the “Five Year Forward View”.

We are building on our record of achievement. Compared with five years ago, our NHS performs over 1 million more operations; has 9,100 more doctors and 8,800 more nurses; and sees, treats and discharges 3,000 more people within the four-hour target. We intend to build on those achievements in this Parliament. It is a great track record. However, the NHS simply cannot go on treating more people at that rate, so as Simon Stevens has said, we need to go up several gears on prevention—a subject to which I hope we will return at another time.

There is growing political consensus on the need to integrate health and social care, which hon. Members have spoken about, and this Government have started to do that. It is all right to talk about it, but with the better care fund the Government have started to do it.

A strong NHS needs a strong economy, and that remains the unanswered question for the Opposition, both in the election and every time they sponsor one of these debates. We are committed to supporting our NHS, not running it down. We are backing the NHS’s own plan for meeting the challenges and opportunities of the future. That promise was not matched by the Opposition, and the public knew it. It remains the elephant in the room for their Front Benchers.

As we go forward, that is where we on the Government side will be putting our collective energy: patients before party; prevention as well as cure; backing our NHS, not running it down. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.

Public Health England: Porton Down

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on having secured a hat-trick of debates on the future of Porton Down, which is a very important subject not just for his constituents, but for the whole country, given the work done there on a wide range of public health threats, including the Ebola outbreak in west Africa. I join him in paying tribute to his constituents for their service both in the UK and on the frontline in Sierra Leone. The medals are hugely deserved.

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for his constituents on this matter and on the creation of Porton science park, which I will turn to later. Through this campaigning he has shown a passion for growth and job creation in his area, and we all admire that.

Scientists have been doing invaluable work at Porton Down since the 1950s. As my hon. Friend has said, in previous debates it has been stressed that the buildings are more than 60 years old and are increasingly becoming unfit for purpose. I know that my hon. Friend agrees with the need to find a solution to the problem—indeed, he devoted his speech to that—to ensure that the vital work can continue. It is important that scientists have the benefit of state-of-the-art facilities that reflect the latest technological advancements, including the shift from Petri dish to big data. So much has happened in recent years and so much change is going on. There is a clear consensus that the status quo is not acceptable and that it will not enable Public Health England to deliver the public health scientific expertise that the Government and the nation require.

My hon. Friend ran through the options. He knows that Public Health England has looked at a number of options to meet the challenge it faces. It has had to consider a wide range of longlisted and shortlisted options, all of which have to demonstrate the best value for money to the taxpayer. The main focus of the options has been on the existing Porton Down and Colindale sites, and the former GlaxoSmithKline facility in Harlow, Essex.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, Public Health England has briefed him and the local MPs, local authorities and other key stakeholders, and has consulted the chief medical officer and chief scientific officer, about the three sites affected and considered in the option appraisal. As my hon. Friend will be aware, PHE’s case is that there are significant benefits from bringing together the range of public health science functions that it manages at disparate sites. I accept that he expressed scepticism about some of the arguments, but PHE believes that creating an integrated national science hub rather than reproviding the same facilities on the same sites would be its ideal. For that reason, in the PHE outline business case, the preferred option was to create a public health science hub based at Harlow.

My hon. Friend asked what was included in some aspects of the outline business case. I can confirm that no additional revenues from any relocation have been included, in line with the rules and guidelines of what is and can be included in such cost-benefit analyses. However, it is hoped that new facilities will lead to increased academic and commercial income.

As I have said, it is essential that the proposal taken forward offers the best value for money for the taxpayer while protecting the vital heath protection functions carried out by scientists. The scrutiny of the business case has included two external reviews organised by the Major Projects Authority. Both have concluded that the business case properly evaluates the options, including options based at Porton. Since our last debate on this topic last September, the review process has continued and the business case has been through a Major Projects Authority gateway process. I can assure my hon. Friend that that has been and will continue to be a thorough and robust process, and that the outline business case continues to be scrutinised by Ministers at the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.

As I have said, PHE has considered a wide range of options in the outline business case, including those that would involve remaining at Porton Down. Alternative, third-party proposals have been put forward, including those of the Porton life sciences group, which were kindly forwarded to me and to other Ministers by my hon. Friend. I assure him that the proposals have been carefully considered.

We recognise the need for collaboration between Public Health England and its neighbours at Porton and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, in the interests of national security. PHE is committed to being collaborative, including having discussions about the use of specialist high-containment facilities. However, we need to be clear that, although PHE and DSTL will continue to collaborate closely, PHE needs dedicated high-containment facilities to ensure that it can properly respond to the threat our nation faces. PHE is the employer of the specialists that are registered to handle human health specimens. The DSTL facilities provide additional resilience, but they were built to meet military requirements. In addition PHE’s facilities provide resilience to the military if DSTL’s facilities are for any reason unavailable. Whatever the final decision, national security, and capabilities for national response, are paramount. It is therefore key for DSTL and all other potential agencies involved in the response to work with PHE to protect public health from current and future threats.

Public Health England has confirmed that it remains committed to the Porton site, even if it is decided to relocate the Porton research functions and staff. That would involve the PHE facilities remaining at Porton consisting of some 300 staff in development and production and regional laboratories. That has continued, with PHE spinning out development and production as a corporate company called Porton Biopharma Ltd, which is wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Health. That will allow for Porton Biopharma Ltd to take a commercial approach to growing the business. I note my hon. Friend’s consistent support for that—he has not spoken against the idea. That allows more people across the world to benefit from the specialist products it manufactures. PHE has briefed my hon. Friend on that work and on maximising the commercial potential of the production facilities at Porton. As he said in his speech, that principle has his support.

The work to increase the commercial potential of the production facilities at Porton will be closely linked to the Porton science park, which I know my hon. Friend has worked hard to bring to his constituency. Porton Biopharma Ltd is next to the new science park and PHE is working closely with Wiltshire County Council on the further opportunities in the life sciences sector that this important development could bring to his constituency.

My hon. Friend rightly focused much of his remarks on the need to support staff in the most appropriate way, and on how unsettling it is for any group of staff to not quite know where their future lies. One third of the posts currently at Porton will remain there, even if research functions and staff are relocated. If those functions are relocated, PHE would work with each member of staff at Porton who is working in a post that would move to Harlow under the new proposals, to support them in decisions about their future. He is absolutely right to make that paramount and I take it very seriously. Some staff may want to relocate to Harlow and others may wish to retire or move to other roles outside PHE. The business case includes support packages for staff that are in line with the Government standard. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

As I have set out, the work conducted at Porton Down is of local, national and international importance. However, there is a consensus that, given the ageing facilities, doing nothing is not an option. PHE has looked at a wide range of possibilities for the future of health protection laboratories in the UK and at the benefits of combining various public heath functions. This has led to a preference for the Harlow site at the outline business case stage. Regardless of the final decision, PHE remains committed to the Porton site, as expressed through the commercialisation of its development and production arm. This will be closely linked to the Porton science park. The outline business case has been through, and continues to go through, rigorous, thorough and robust scrutiny before a final decision is reached by Ministers.

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued keen scrutiny of this important issue. I congratulate him once again on securing the debate and on continuing to be such an ardent champion for the interests of Porton as a science centre of excellence and for his constituents and their future.

Question put and agreed to.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

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

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 18-19 June in Luxembourg. The Health and Consumer Affairs part of the Council will take place in the morning of 19 June.

The main agenda item is the following:

Regulations on medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices: the presidency plans a general approach on medical devices. The regulations seek to address weaknesses in the current regulatory system, ensure a more consistent level of implementation across the EU, and ensure that the EU will continue to be viewed by business as an innovation-friendly regulatory environment.

The UK has broadly supported the Commission’s proposals in order to ensure high standards of patient safety. At the outset of negotiations the UK identified three areas as priorities:

avoiding an ineffective and bureaucratic process proposed by the Commission involving additional pre-market scrutiny of higher risk devices by a central committee of member state experts;

ensuring sufficient flexibility is in place to allow health institutions to manufacture and use diagnostic tests developed ‘in-house’; and

resisting proposals to introduce additional regulatory burdens.

Under ‘any other business’ there will also be presentations on three other issues by the following delegations:

Slovenia—follow-up to the informal meeting of EU Health Ministers on a new framework for the EU alcohol policy;

Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta—importance of the health dimension in the European agenda on migration;

Luxembourg—priorities for their forthcoming presidency, which will run from July until December 2015.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS24]

Health and Social Care

Jane Ellison Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I echo the words of the shadow care Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall): this has been a very good and passionate debate. We have heard a great deal of expertise and many excellent maiden speeches, to which I shall turn in a few moments. Of course, we have also been treated to rounds three and four of the Labour leadership hustings, which shone through very clearly. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the shadow Health team meetings. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) have already declared for the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), but I think that the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) is keeping his powder dry at the moment. He is not in the Chamber at the moment; perhaps he is away considering his views. He has had a chance to listen to all the prospective leaders now. He is a one-man jury in “Labour’s Got Talent”, and we want to hear from him. We need to hear what he has to say.

The shadow Minister was rightly generous in her tribute to the new hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. It was particularly noticeable how many of them brought relevant health experience to this House. That will greatly enhance our debates over the coming years.

Let me mention in turn the Members from the SNP and from my own party.

The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) spoke powerfully on inequalities. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) spoke of the powerful reputation of the City of Glasgow and her role as a spokesperson for disability. I warmly welcome the SNP spokesman for health, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), a very beautiful part of this United Kingdom. I was particularly interested to hear about her experience as a breast cancer specialist; I am sure that will greatly enhance our debates on an issue that we have many debates about, and to which I have responded many times.

On my side of the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) spoke about her health campaigning. I was sorry to have missed her speech. I was also sorry to miss the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), but I am at least in time to wish her a happy 40th birthday for today. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (James Davies) spoke about his experience, and that of his constituents, of the Welsh NHS, and I would echo his hopes of improving the health services of people on both sides of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) spoke about her experience of more than a decade of working in the NHS and highlighted the importance of the way we conduct our debates on health matters, and the need to rise above party political lines. Today’s debate has for the most part been an example of how that can be done, but we still have some work to do. I shall return to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) spoke about the challenges facing his local hospital and the investment being put into it. I was very struck by hearing my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) speak of the need to safeguard and champion the interests of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) demonstrated the positive effects that the Government’s long-term economic plan has had on her constituency and focused on the health needs of Telford and her determination to be a powerful voice for her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke very warmly of his constituency; having heard his speech, I am confident that we can expect great things from him.

Many speeches focused on health. Many speeches brought out what people could contribute in this Chamber on health matters. A variety of other issues were raised and I shall try to cover them, but it might not be possible to get through them all.

It is clear since the election that the public have resoundingly rejected the politics of fear that so often characterises statements on the NHS from the Labour party. [Interruption.] Well, at least it is clear to us that they did that, but, as the hon. Member for Leicester West may reflect when she looks back on the debate, it seems that it is far from clear to many of her colleagues that that tone was rejected by the electorate. The former Leader of the Opposition said he would turn the NHS into a weapon and—thankfully for us and unfortunately for him—that weapon backfired, but a number of Opposition Members do not seem to have taken that message on board. Yes, the NHS faces big challenges. Conservative Members have always been absolutely clear and honest about that—we have said it time and again—but we have dedicated staff working on it, and they are stepping up to those challenges and working tirelessly for their patients.

[Liz Kendall]

As we are speaking of one of the major challenges facing the NHS, will the Minister tell us whether the NHS England business plan published on Friday 27 March said that the NHS would not meet the cancer target until March 2016?

[Jane Ellison]

That is another example of trying to weaponise the NHS. [Hon. Members: “Answer.”] There were 700,000 more cancer patients treated in the last Parliament. Figures show that 12,000 more people are surviving cancer at the end of the last Parliament than were at the beginning. There were millions more diagnostic tests, for cancer and a range of other issues, so there is a great record here. We acknowledge—

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

No, I cannot give way at this moment.

The coalition Government had an excellent record on cancer. Yes, there is further to go, and that is why we have made it central to our plans. We want to see the NHS go further and faster on diagnostics. That is why NHS England has an independent taskforce looking at this issue. We got its interim report in March. We will get its final report in the summer and we will act on it.

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

It is bluster.

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Gentleman says it is bluster. Is it bluster to talk about the £1 billion invested in the cancer drugs fund?

[Liz Kendall]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

No, I am sorry, I will not give way. As they have demonstrated today, the hon. Lady and many of her colleagues sought to weaponise the NHS in the last Parliament and they are seeking to do so again.

In return for NHS staff stepping up and working so tirelessly for their patients, the Conservatives have committed the money that the NHS says it needs. Two elections running, the Labour party failed to commit the money that the NHS says it needs. Until the Opposition do that and explain how they can deliver the strong economy that is needed to do it, they have no right to speak about this. It is only possible to deliver that if we have a strong economy and a long-term economic plan. Listening to the NHS, not running it down—that will continue to be our approach in this Parliament.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I regret that the Minister missed my speech, because she, like her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has so far failed to mention the elephant in the room: the record deficit facing the NHS. She knows about this, because we have debated it in this House; she knows exactly what I am talking about. What is she going to do about that deficit? When is she going to address it? When is she going to fulfil the promises she made to my constituents in Exeter and the population of Devon, which faces one of the worst deficits in the country? Without action, patient care and services will suffer.

[Jane Ellison]

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber for the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I was briefly attending a meeting of directors of public health, but I know he asked a specific question about the turnaround plan in his area. I believe it has been presented to the new governing body of Devon CCG, but I am happy to pick up the detail. As he says, we have debated the issue.

On the deficit in the NHS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responded in great detail in his opening address, but the thing about NHS finances that the Labour party never gets its head around is that, yes, they are under pressure, but one has to have a long-term plan for how to address that—plans for integration, out-of-hospital care and prevention. One has to be able to say—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asks where the money will come from. That is a question the electorate asked the Labour party all the way through the election—that was the No. 1 question the electorate of this country asked the Labour party, and answer came there none.

I am proud of the work we have done in the past five years, in which the NHS has built capacity and improved the care it delivers. It is worth reiterating the facts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave at the beginning of the debate. The NHS is now performing more than 1 million more operations; it has 9,400 more doctors and 7,700 more nurses; it sees, treats and discharges more than 3,000 more people within four hours every single day. By the end of the last Parliament, public satisfaction with the NHS was up 5% and it was deemed the best performing health system in the world by the Commonwealth Fund.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is being very accurate and precise about the figures for the NHS. Would she mind answering the shadow Minister’s question about the cancer targets for next year?

[Jane Ellison]

I have already responded to that issue. One would think that Her Majesty’s Opposition would have learned by now that to constantly denigrate the things the NHS does so well in pursuit of making political points does them no service at all.

There is a great track record for the NHS in the face of growing demand and tight financial pressures, but the NHS cannot go on treating more people at this rate. We need to move up several gears in prevention. If we prevent avoidable ill health, as well as enhancing the lives of so many of our citizens, we will get more out of the precious resources available for the NHS. In that vein, we are transforming access to GP and out-of-hospital care. It is all about relieving the pressures that we know exist in the health system and building on our work to bring about full parity between physical and mental health. Those measures will help us to ensure that people get the right care at the right time in the right place, and bring prevention to the fore.

The right hon. Member for Leigh asked specifically about the Bill on professional regulation. I can confirm that the Government remain committed to taking forward recommendations for reformed legislation on regulation of the health and care professions. Work is being done on that important piece of business.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the former Chair of the Health Committee, and others welcomed our announcement of a clampdown on agency pay. That goes to the heart of how we tackle financial pressures in the NHS. She also asked how agency rates will be set. It will be done on a local basis, agreed by providers and taking into account local circumstances and the regional labour market. Restrictions will not apply to internal “bank” staff—that was one of the specific questions she asked—which we see as a better and cheaper alternative to external agencies.

I said that it was important to get serious about prevention. As the Public Health Minister, I am delighted to see prevention right at the heart of the NHS’s own plan, the plan that we on the Conservative Benches are backing: the Five Year Forward View. We know that to ensure that our NHS is sustainable in the long term, we need to stop many people getting ill in the first place and ending up in hospital, so prevention is key. As the party of aspiration, we want everyone to achieve their potential and get on in life, for themselves and their family. Preventable ill-health and the burden of disease are a barrier to this and can hold people back. As we heard in many of the maiden speeches today, it is a burden that falls disproportionately on the most deprived communities. One of the frustrations that we on the Government Benches often feel is that it is not recognised by the Opposition that tackling health inequalities is something that we all feel passionately about. Improving the health of the most deprived communities in our country is a key part of tackling inequality in our society.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Minister mentions deprivation and health inequality. I have listened to council leaders dealing with inequality and deprivation. They face extreme cuts under this Government which have caused massive problems for the NHS. What would she like me to say to them?

[Jane Ellison]

I do not remember in the last election campaign the former shadow Chancellor going around promising local government any more money. We cannot have big debates about the future of important and expensive services such as social care and healthcare if the Opposition are not prepared to say where they would make savings and how they would keep the economy growing. It is just not sustainable.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

No. I shall make some more progress.

On tackling health inequalities, although I missed his speech I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), with whom I have made common cause on public health issues a number of times. He has been a great champion of the health inequalities agenda.

Over the past five years, we have done much to improve people’s health. In my own area we have legislated to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products and banned smoking in cars with children to protect our children from the deadly harms of tobacco. We have worked with industry to take 1.3 billion units of alcohol off our shelves, and today we had good news of another big fall in the number of under-18s being admitted to our hospitals for alcohol-related illnesses. Two thirds of products on our shelves now have colour-coded front-of-pack labelling thanks to our world-leading voluntary scheme, helping people to understand more about what is in the food and drink they consume. We also have a world-leading salt reduction programme, which has led to a fall in the number of strokes.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Lady is talking about methods of reducing lung cancer and other cancers, which we welcome, yet one in four patients diagnosed with lung cancer and bowel cancer are waiting more than 62 days, sometimes more than four or five months, for treatment after their diagnosis. How is that tolerable?

[Jane Ellison]

The issue of people surviving cancer and getting proper treatment at the right time is something that we all feel passionately about. We inherited some of the worst cancer survival rates in the world, and the previous Government did a great deal to address that, but of course there is more to do. We have always acknowledged that there is more to do to help our health system respond to issues such as cancer. That is exactly why we are looking forward to the report in the summer from the independent cancer taskforce, which will challenge us all to go further and faster on early diagnosis and treatment.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister address the issue that I raised in my contribution and the advice from Lawrence Dallaglio and the experts who believe that part of the solution to the point highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) are regional cancer centres with advanced SABR technology, which is not available in many parts of the country, including my region?

[Jane Ellison]

I am sure we will return to debating SABR and other cancer treatments, as we did often in the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his speech the progress that has been made on radiotherapy, and we want to build on that.

[Jesse Norman]

I am glad that the Minister has mentioned radiotherapy. I had the honour of opening the radiotherapy unit at Hereford hospital. Does she share my view that for cancer sufferers an awful lot of the therapy needs to be complemented by wrap-around care for their other health needs? That is something we do terribly well at the Haven in Hereford, and at other centres across the countries, such as Maggie’s centres. Does she agree that that is an important part of cancer care?

[Jane Ellison]

It is a very important part of cancer care, and something we have debated often in this House. I have seen for myself while on visits just how important the services that wrap around clinical care are.

Let me turn to an issue that we hope to give particular focus to in this Parliament: the need to tackle obesity. It is appropriate that I do so just after an intervention on cancer, because we are understanding more and more about the links between obesity and cancer in later life. They are frightening and shocking. We want to tackle issues such as childhood obesity fiercely in this Parliament. The biggest link between obesity and ill health, however, is that between obesity and type 2 diabetes. If not properly managed, type 2 diabetes can have devastating consequences, including loss of eyesight and limb amputations.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution I asked about legal highs. Perhaps the Minister could give some idea of what will happen with those.

[Jane Ellison]

The relevant Bill is being brought forward by another Department, but I noted that the hon. Gentleman welcomed it and am sure that we will return to that.

The start of a new Parliament provides an opportunity to take a serious and thoughtful look at how we tackle a big issue such as obesity. As I said during Health questions earlier today, there are no silver bullets; it will require effort on a global, national and local scale. We are working up our plans for that and will announce them in due course, but they will involve everyone. All parts of Government, local government, industry and individual families will need to move the dial on such a big issue in a way that has not been done in the developed world. There will be interest right across the House in tackling it, particularly the link with diabetes. I note that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has so often championed the issue in the House, is in his place.

The NHS is coping well with unprecedented pressures. That achievement has been possible only through the hard work of doctors, nurses and health professionals, together with our commitment to invest in the NHS, but a strong NHS needs a strong economy. It is only by having a long-term economic plan that we can increase the NHS budget by £8 billion in real terms over this Parliament. The public got that, even if the Labour party did not. However, there is much more to do. I hope that the era of scaremongering and running down the NHS is over—[Interruption.] Sadly, I am beginning to think it is not. I really hope that we can make a new start. One of the saddest conversations I had during the election—I am sure that this could be echoed by many colleagues on the Government side of the House, particularly new Members—was with an elderly constituent who had been informed very seriously by a Labour canvasser that the NHS was going to be sold to an American company. That was absolutely shocking.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Labour’s friend, David Babbs’s 38 Degrees, although it says it is not party political, was also pushing that claim to 2 million people on its website list. Would it not be a good idea to ask 38 Degrees why it did not make a single bleat about the Labour party’s failure to meet the NHS’s request for money in future?

[Jane Ellison]

That is a very good question, and I think that all Members who found campaigns of that sort in their constituencies were asking the same thing. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point.

As many Government Members have stressed, we have an opportunity to put the political football back in the locker. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to provide that all-important political stability and support to our health and care staff. They have a really big challenge to rise to. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent made the point very well that the things we say here echo beyond the Chamber and have a big impact on the people of whom we ask so much. It is important that we try really hard to learn the lessons of the election and stop making health a political football. As our health and care staff rise to the challenges of the next few years, just as they have done in the past, we on the Government side will back them all the way, because our nation’s health depends on it.