Accident and Emergency Departments

Debate between Jeremy Hunt and John Denham

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Yes, I am happy to confirm that it is additional money. I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he shows in his local hospital, which is going through a very challenging time. We are absolutely determined that where hospitals are failing or delivering inadequate care, we will not sit on those problems; we will expose them and deal with them. That is the best thing we can do for my hon. Friend’s constituents and people all over the country where there are, unfortunately, problems with local hospitals.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

In the last year, the A and E target was missed at Southampton hospital in 38 of 52 weeks. Since I last raised that in the House, Monitor has gone in to investigate the governance of the hospital, yet no money has been made available by the Secretary of State in today’s announcement. Is that not a sign that the crisis is so big that he has only been able to give a limited amount of help to those places that have an even worse crisis than we have in Southampton?

[Mr Hunt]

The pressure exists throughout the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is real pressure in all hospitals. I commend all A and E departments for their hard work. The ones that got additional resources today were the 53 local health economies where we thought the risks were highest, and I think it was right to target that money to help those areas, but that is not to say that there is not a lot of pressure in other areas. That is why the long-term changes that we are talking about—the transformation in IT systems, the increased availability of GPs to look after frail and vulnerable older people, the integration of health and social care services—will benefit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and his hospital profoundly, and I am sure he will notice the difference.

Children’s Heart Surgery

Debate between Jeremy Hunt and John Denham

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Patient choice is very important, but it is also fair to say that there are other considerations in such a review, such as clinical best practice and what outcomes will get the best results for children. We need to be up front with the public that that will not mean specialist children’s heart surgery being offered in every major city in this country. There will be some difficult decisions at the end of the process. The broader point about patient choice, when it comes to considering mortality rates, is that it ties in very well with the concept of peer review. The way we can get better outcomes for children is by being able to compare what happens in different centres, and that is a very important part of the process.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge one fact that has complicated this process? A foundation trust that loses children’s heart surgery will probably lose paediatric intensive care and, therefore, all the rest of its paediatric service activities, doing potentially catastrophic damage to the budgets of some trusts. Are the institutional pressures on individual trusts not one reason why it has been so hard to get a collaborative approach to that fundamental change? How does the Secretary of State intend to resolve that issue as he moves forward with the review?

[Mr Hunt]

The independent review says that the knock-on effects on adult heart surgery, and the interrelationship between the two, need to be considered. There are always knock-on effects of a service reconfiguration. Within reason, one must consider them, but one must also bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Leigh said: one must ensure that one does not overcomplicate the reviews. If we consider every single knock-on effect of every single change, the danger is that we end up not being able to change anything at all, which on this occasion would be an abdication of our important responsibilities.

A and E Departments

Debate between Jeremy Hunt and John Denham

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Under this Government, we have 6,000 more doctors than we had under Labour, but we need more people going into general practice as well. [Interruption.] Yes, the training might have started under the Labour Government, but the funding happened under this Government, and it would not be possible if we cut the budget, which is what the Labour party still wants to do. She is right to point out those issues, however. One way of making general practice more attractive is to restore the personal link between GPs and the people on their list and a sense of personal responsibility and accountability. We need to find the right way of doing that, given the pressures on general practice at the moment, and I hope to work with her and many others to do that.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

May I tell this complacent Secretary of State that in 28 out of the last 30 weeks Southampton general hospital has missed the waiting time A and E target? In the week beginning 7 April, only six out of 10 patients were seen within four hours. It is clear that this is a crisis of the whole health system. Given that in the last six months his own specialist advisers have praised the Southampton health economy for the role that primary care has played in reducing pressures on A and E, will he think again before simply blaming one group of doctors for a problem that runs right through the health system and into social care?

[Mr Hunt]

I am not blaming any doctors; I am blaming the Labour party for making disastrous decisions in office. We are addressing the issues that his party failed to address. If Southampton is not meeting its A and E targets, that is unacceptable. We are talking to all the hospitals struggling to meet those targets, but they all say—I am sure that people in Southampton would say this as well—that we need to look at the fundamental issues, which are barriers between the health and social care systems, poor primary care alternatives and problems inside hospitals with how A and E is handled. We are addressing all those issues.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Debate between Jeremy Hunt and John Denham

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I will make a little progress, then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

The second allegation is over ministerial responsibility for my special adviser, as set out in paragraph 3.3 of the ministerial code. Adam Smith, my former special adviser, is someone of the highest integrity—[Interruption.] He is. However, he did engage in some contact with News Corporation that was inappropriate and he has resigned. Lessons will be learned about how to improve processes and to avoid that happening again. I did not know about or authorise—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

Like the Secretary of State, I was responsible for appointing a number of special advisers who worked for me. It is inconceivable to me that any one of my special advisers could have maintained contact of this volume with a major stakeholder without me, as the Secretary of State, being aware of it. How on earth can he explain his apparent case that he knew nothing about what was going on?

[Mr Hunt]

I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would explain why it is a breach of the code when a Conservative special adviser behaves inappropriately, but not when a Labour special adviser does, but he did not.

I want to get on to the substance of what the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham said. Parliament rightly holds Ministers to account, and I strongly defend the right of this House to do so. Since my answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in September, as a result of our gathering evidence for the Leveson inquiry, more than 2,000 pages of paperwork relating to the BSkyB bid have been assembled and placed in the House Library. That shows that time after time I sought to supply the House with as much information as possible, far beyond what was required by the Enterprise Act 2002, and probably far more than for any previous deal. It shows that I not only followed legal advice but went beyond it, seeking and publishing independent and expert advice about every key decision—an approach that was confirmed by nearly six hours of testimony under oath from myself and others, including my permanent secretary, who said that I had deliberately reduced my own room to manipulate the process to vanishing point.

Indeed, the evidence shows that the real story of this bid was insistence by me at several key stages on decisions that News Corp did not consider to be in its interests—the involvement of independent regulators; the stopping of James Murdoch being chairman of the spun-off Sky News; the refusal to rush the process; the decision to consult not once but twice. This was not an easy process, nor was it ever likely to command popular support, but the decisions were taken fairly and my Department deserves enormous credit as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

I would indeed welcome an intervention that told the House why neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister thought it appropriate to tell the Cabinet Secretary of the existence of the November memo to the Prime Minister. The Culture Secretary should have gone to the Cabinet Secretary and said: “This is relevant to your decision as to whether I am a suitable person”. Why did the Secretary of State not make that available?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

Because I was not party to any of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary.

[Mr Denham]

The Secretary of State would have known on 22 December that the Cabinet Secretary had written to me saying that he was in the clear. Any honest Secretary of State would have turned around at that moment—