Brain Tumours

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

We simply do not know the reason for that, but we think that the Government need to look at this as a matter of urgency and raise awareness among GPs as part of their continuing professional development programme. It is very important that they understand this, because if the disease was caught in its early stages, that would help future research. More people could take part in clinical trials and more could donate tissue in the early stages of the disease. Research is extraordinarily important, and I will come back to that in a minute.

We heard from a number of experts, including Professor Geoff Pilkington from the University of Portsmouth, about the questions that GPs should be asking when people present with particular symptoms—it is not always a headache, of course. There can be lots of different symptoms, such as an odd smell or a pain in the spine. There is a range of symptoms that people need to be alert to, but the only real way to diagnose a brain tumour is with a scan. Again, we heard from many people who had tried and tried to get a scan but were not able to do so.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. An important factor, which she has just mentioned, is the difficulty of getting scans. Why is that difficult? Is there a shortage of scanners or is there another reason?

[Helen Jones]

Again, we were given various reasons when we took evidence, and we want the Government to consider the matter carefully. There is no doubt that if we are to improve scanning procedures, we must accept that a number of scans will come back clear. The issue is, what proportion that comes back with no tumour shown is acceptable? Surely it is better to invest in a scan than to let a tumour grow, because later treatment is much more difficult, complex and costly. We want more people to have access to scanning.

Early diagnosis is important, but it will not solve the problem without more research. Despite the excellent scientists and clinicians who gave evidence to the Committee, there is no doubt that they are working in an underfunded system. The Government response to the petition said that about 1.5% of cancer spending is devoted to brain tumours, but that includes fundamental research and non-site-specific research.

The National Cancer Research Institute told us in evidence that some non-site-specific research undoubtedly benefits brain tumour research, but it was unable to put a figure on that. We heard from Professor Tracy Warr of the brain tumour research centre at the University of Wolverhampton that brain tumours are less likely than other cancers to benefit from non-site-specific research because of their complexity and location, and the blood-brain barrier, which means that drugs that work in the bloodstream do not transfer to the brain. That is an unscientific explanation, but I am sure hon. Members will know what I mean.

We found that spending records are very unclear. The Government’s own records are not clear. The National Cancer Research Institute was unhelpful when trying to find out exactly how much of the spending benefited research into brain tumours and there is no central record of spending by people who are not partners with the National Cancer Research Institute. There is no doubt that spending is low. The only figure that we can be certain of is the 3.3% of spending on site-specific research, which is about £7.7 million a year. At that rate of progress, it is estimated that it would take 100 years for the outcome for brain tumours to be as good as for many other cancers.

Contaminated Blood

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I will make a little progress and then take an intervention. I was paying tribute to all those who fought for many years. I think we would all agree that they have been fighting for too many years to get a just settlement for what happened to them. Let us be frank: they are weary from fighting. They want to resolve this once and for all, and to get on with their lives. Sadly, more and more people are dying without seeing that justice. Each individual affected has been robbed of many of the opportunities we all take for granted—the opportunities to work, to have a career, to buy a home and to grow old with the person they love. Family members have had to care for their loved ones, perhaps giving up careers to do so, and watch their health deteriorate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has been tenacious in her pursuit of this issue, which has been going on for many years. Like her, I have constituents who have been affected by it, and it is about time this was brought to an end and action was actually taken. She mentioned thalidomide, but that took many years to address and it took a determined Minister to introduce the scheme. If he did that, I cannot see why this Minister cannot do the same.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important to recognise that in this case there has never been an admission of liability from the Department of Health or the NHS in respect of what happened to these individuals; they have always taken the view that nobody could have known at the time about the problem with the infected blood. I want to make the point that this is not a court of law; this is Parliament, and we are being asked to deal with a clear wrong that has been done to our constituents. We know that these people were damaged and harmed by the treatment they received from the NHS—by the state. What we need to do now is put together a proper support package to ensure that those affected and their families are at the heart of what we do and whatever scheme is proposed.

National Minimum Wage: Care Sector

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this debate.

In September 2015, I made representations to the Minister on behalf of a social care organisation in my constituency, North London Homecare and Support, which was concerned about its financial capability to accommodate the increase in the national living wage. The Minister, in his response, informed me that the Government were working with the social care sector to consider the overall cost of social care and funding for local government, and that the result would be announced in the spending review. In spite of commitments about further funding, however, the social care sector is still not receiving adequate investment.

According to Local Government Association estimates, the social care precept will raise £372 million, which stands far short of the £2 billion figure suggested by the Government. The majority of that will be used to cover the cost of the transition to the new national living wage. In addition, although the better care fund is expected to deliver around £1.5 billion by 2019-20, the gap in social care funding is expected to reach £3.5 billion by the end of the Parliament in 2020.

With an ageing population and an NHS under increasing pressure, it is clear that we need the social care sector.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. One of the tricks that the Government have pulled is to shove the responsibility for social care on to local authorities. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but what the Government have not done is give them the resources to do it—they have given them about 2%. Three or four years down the road, we will reach a point when the Government come back and want to cap the local authorities, because they are spending too much—that is what the Government will say. We have had all that before. The other thing we should bear in mind is that at the moment local government is badly funded, to say the least.

[Kate Osamor]

I could not agree more. Those points are alarming and worry us all, and that is why we have all come to speak in the debate.

Only a thriving social care sector that is valued and respected will be able to give our NHS the support it needs to provide integrated healthcare solutions. The Minister and the Government must accept their responsibility to support social care through the transition to the national living wage and beyond to 2020. Sustainable, long-term investment is desperately needed.

NHS and Social Care Commission

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I rise to support the motion, and I hope in my contribution I will be able to explain why. I should first declare my interest as a licensed medical practitioner, albeit one who is in awe of my colleagues in the Chamber who regularly see patients, which is something I thoroughly commend. I think most of the people out there—apart from those who write for some of the more scurrilous parts of our national press—appreciate the fact that there are people in this place who are still engaged in medical practice of all sorts. It makes us relevant, it makes us current and it gives us some authority, as we have heard already today, when we talk about areas of expertise.

There are some omissions in the motion, however. I suspect that its magisterial generality is probably by design; nevertheless, it fails to mention public health directly, which is an important part of the piece. If we are to consider the entirety of health and social care in this country, we need to talk about public health, which I think, if I am honest, has been neglected by consecutive Governments, largely because nobody fully understands what public health is. There is not really an accepted definition of “public health”. It means many things to many people. Some of us still believe, I suppose, that it is a rather old-fashioned thing, to do with the pre-1974 vision of medical officers of health, who dealt exclusively with infectious diseases. It is much bigger than that. Public health pervades all elements of the public service and needs to be addressed head on if we are to deal with some of the pressures we face in the acute sector, as well as ensuring that we meet some of the imperatives that apply to health in this country, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) has pointed out, should mean being focused pretty much exclusively on healthcare outcomes.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned outcomes almost in passing. Let me gently suggest that outcomes, mortality and healthcare experience throughout life are absolutely what we must be remorselessly focused on, and there the story is not a particularly good one, as the Commonwealth Fund made clear. Of course, the Commonwealth Fund report is quoted selectively by those who want to say that our system is the best there is, and that is fine: I trained in the NHS, I have worked in the NHS and I would be reliant on the NHS, so I defer to nobody in my admiration of the national health service and all that it stands for and does. However, it is naive to suppose that it is perfect in all respects, which is what I suspect really lies at the heart of this motion, as we look to the distant future.

The Commonwealth Fund says that outcomes in this country are not good, and I think our people deserve much better. I want outcomes in this country to be among the very best in Europe, not, frankly, in the lower quartile, as is too often the case with common forms of disease. We are betraying those who put us here if we demand anything less than that. The motion is relatively modest, because it tries to work out how we will square the gap towards the end of this decade. I think that, in the minds of those who wrote it, they are worried about the £30 billion—that will apply in five years’ time—but we are perhaps not looking forward to improve on where we are at the moment. There is too much talk, really, of marking time. The concern we have about the gap in funding makes us think that what we have now is good enough, but frankly it is not. We need to be much more ambitious, as we look ahead, about how we improve our health service right across the piece, including public health, to ensure that our health outcomes approximate the very best in Europe and not, in too many cases, the very worst.

The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned the Barker report, and she was right to do so. The Barker report was useful. The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that I did not necessarily agree with all its conclusions; nevertheless, Kate Barker produced some figures that were useful. She pointed out that spending on health in this country is less than in some of the countries with which we can reasonably be compared. She talks of Canada, France and the Netherlands, and suggests that by 2025 we will need to spend a great deal more of our national wealth on health and, by implication, social care, and I agree with that. She suggested 11% to 12%, which, given the demographics, is probably reasonably modest.

The dispute is about how we would deal with that, because £30 billion does not really come close, given what is happening. It does not come close even if we stand still, let alone seek to improve outcomes in the way I have suggested we must. The question then is how on earth we close the gap—whether we do it through general taxation, national insurance, some sort of hypothecated system or a mutual, as applies in France, for example, or whether we go for co-payment. I suspect there is pretty much a consensus in the House that we can discount some of the options fairly easily, but it is important that the commission that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk seeks to set up should examine all options, even if there is a general understanding that some of them will not be palatable, for a variety of reasons, be it fairness, efficiency or not being geared sufficiently well to the lodestar of outcomes. Nevertheless, we need to examine all options if we are to do this for the very long term, as I believe is the intention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell was right to focus on structure—something on which I believe there is a need for cross-party discussion and, I would hope, consensus. It is all very well talking about the NHS estate in general, but although what he described from his personal experience was terribly brave, I know from my personal experience that when that is translated into the specifics of our constituencies, for many Members it becomes extraordinarily difficult. It is the local that inspires many people in their love of the NHS. They would love to have their local hospital and local services that they identify with. When it comes to talking about the NHS estate, what we are really talking about is change.

Sometimes change is great locally, because it means a spanking new hospital, but too often it means at least a perception of loss, and people feel that acutely. One of the first things I did when I was elected here 15 years ago was to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill called the bed-block Bill. I find to my horror that, 15 years on, the issues remain. In essence, my Bill was designed to promote community hospitals—cottage hospitals. I had four in my constituency at that time and I felt that each was, for different reasons, under threat. I was a strong advocate for them, and the bed-block Bill, which was designed to promote them and unblock acute hospitals, was duly presented and, like all these things, duly drifted into the sand.

The issue remains relevant, but at the higher level we also need to talk about whether we are right-sized for acute or district general hospitals, and whether we should have these relatively small institutions across the country—far more than there would be in France, for example—offering, or attempting to offer, pretty much the same stuff. An example would be gastroenterology. The British Society of Gastroenterology has produced reports on this issue, pointing out that in many district general hospitals people are not guaranteed to have out-of-hours upper gastrointestinal endoscopy services available to them. I put it to the House that in the 21st century, not being sure that someone is going to be scoped if they have an acute upper GI bleed is simply not acceptable. That is bound to translate into poorer outcomes for a relatively common set of conditions.

It seems to me that the only way we can achieve better outcomes in that kind of situation is to think about whether we need to move towards regional and sub-regional specialist centres rather than continue with the pretence that we can mirror those services in each one of our district general hospitals. More commonly, people talk about stroke and heart attack—and the same applies. It is simply not the case that people will get the same treatment regardless of the hospital they go to.

This is professionally driven. It is the specialists themselves who are saying that we need increasingly to specialise. The day of the generalist is pretty well coming to a conclusion. In order to get that level of specialisation, we must have critical mass, and the only way of achieving that is by having a smaller number of what might be seen as “clinical cathedrals”—large centres offering highly specialist services, geared towards improving outcomes.

The downside is obviously where the cuts then come. Right-sizing the NHS estate inevitably means some will gain and some will lose in the process—in terms of the immediacy of services. Nobody wants to have to travel miles and miles to access services. We get complaints from our constituents about this all the time. There is a process of education for the public to go through. They need to make a choice. They have either immediacy of service just down the road to an institution that will give them sub-optimal care, or better outcomes of a sort that might reasonably be achieved in a regional or sub-regional centre. That is the choice.

Part of the work of the commission suggested by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk will encompass that work of education. That is one reason why, however, I think his 12-month timeframe is very ambitious. I would certainly not want to have a commission reporting in five or 10 years’ time, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to be more realistic about how long this will take if it is going to be an iterative process.

At a lower level, we need better step-up and step-down care. That is at the heart of our ability to unblock some of our acute centres. It is important to look at this issue again. The reason why community hospitals went ever so slightly out of favour relates to the costs of the services they provided, which occurred because the case mix was all wrong. Too often, this became a convenient way of relieving social pressures, admitting people ostensibly for medical reasons to a medical bed when those people primarily needed social care. It always comes back to social care, and if we put people requiring social care into what remains a medical bed, it will of course become impossibly expensive. That is why it did not add up. I am afraid that the onus is on the practitioners and the controllers of those places—general practitioners—to ensure that the case mix is correct. If we do that, community hospitals will become both effective and efficient.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

One issue that has certainly come to light in Coventry when we are talking about bed-blocking—it is another factor associated with it—is that people cannot be released from hospital until they have a social worker arranged to look after them outside. Social workers are normally employed by the local authority, so if there is a shortage of social workers, the beds will be blocked again—at an additional cost. I think the commission should look at that.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It comes back to the issue of integrating health and social care. We have to say that some progress has been made in that respect.

At this point in my contribution, let me make it clear—despite the fact that this is intended as a non-partisan initiative—that I feel very strongly that without a strong economy, we will not make any progress at all. Improvement requires the sort of economy to which we aspire—not one such as has been sustained in Greece, Spain and Portugal. If we look at those three countries, whose healthcare systems were not comparable to ours before their respective crises, we should note what has happened subsequently, as their Governments have struggled to control their economic situation by making huge cuts. We need to be very aware that we have avoided that in this country. Without a strong economy, talking about improving public services across the board—and particularly in the huge area of healthcare—is, frankly, pretty pointless. There will not be the resources to sustain what we have at the moment, let alone the 12% increase suggested by Kate Barker in her report. That is fundamental.

I want to give credit to Ministers for sustaining the Stevens plan. We have heard some contributions today suggesting why that the plan might not turn out to be sufficient, but finding that sort of money at a time of austerity is a huge achievement, which should be acknowledged. I was proud to stand only a few months ago on a manifesto that supported the £8 billion spend. That allows us to have a service that is at least sustainable, notwithstanding my fears for the future and the inadequacy of our plans at this point in time, and should take us through to the end of the decade and beyond at a time when local government funding is being cut. That means that the pressure on social services, which was not anticipated by Simon Stevens, applies, while we face further pressures on the public health budget, too. Together, those pressures will mean having a deficit by the end of the decade that will need to be addressed. Beyond that, looking to 2025 and even further as Kate Barker has done, we need to determine how to find the extra funds that she feels are necessary, notwithstanding the dispute about where the funds might come from. I imagine that these issues will be examined by the commission proposed by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk when it is set up.

Let me finish with a few more small points about public health. Among my distinguished medical colleagues in this place, I believe I am the only one with a postgraduate qualification in public health and the only one who has done a job with a significant public health input. I have a bit of a soft spot for this discipline, and I hope I understand some of what it is about.

“Healthy Lives, Healthy People” has, in my view, been a success. It has set public health on the right track, handing back to local government a function that it arguably should never have lost, and setting up Public Health England, which I think has done a good job on the whole. I suspect that the Minister, who will answer the debate shortly, will have fallen off his stool when he read the King’s Fund report a little under a year ago, which essentially said the same thing—that public health appears to be on the right track in this country at the moment and that the changes introduced in the White Paper five years ago have largely been successful.

However, there is absolutely no room for complacency, as I am sure the Minister will agree, particularly when we have healthcare indices on areas such as our rate of teenage pregnancy. Although it has improved, it remains among the very worst in Europe. We do just slightly better than Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Nobody here would be satisfied with that, I hope, and while we have public health indices as disastrous as that, there is no room for complacency.

One of my worries about what has happened over the past several months is that we appear to have changed from a model in which healthcare is pretty much exclusively funded through general taxation—that is to say, national insurance and income tax—to one that is partly funded by local taxation, with all that means when it comes to cuts in hard times. In my view, the sort of public health interventions that are having bits shaved off them at the moment are not discretionary, but essential parts of healthcare.

We can all come up with wonderful figures to show why we need to invest in healthcare. By and large, public health investment saves money in the long term, but the potential for public health intervention prevention services to have a real impact on people’s lives is truly enormous. Very little of it is going to happen overnight, so it will not show up on people’s metrics—certainly not within an electorally obliging timeframe—but they nevertheless remain.

If we are setting up a commission to look at how we do healthcare in the very long term, we most certainly need to focus on public health. We need to ensure that resources for public health are maintained and sustained. Those resources are not discretionary, but an essential part of what we should be doing for healthcare in this country—although I accept that when it comes to making economies, it will always be tempting to shave bits off public health services rather than cutting an acute service, which would be much more obvious to the public.

I support the motion, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk on tabling it. He is right to say that party politicians meddle with this national religion of ours, the national health service, at their peril. If we accept that we face huge challenges in the long term, beyond 2020, it is important that we not only engage in a national debate so that we can address some of the difficult issues that we have discussed this afternoon—the estates, for example, and how we pay for healthcare—but try to gain that usually impossible goal of securing some level of cross-party consensus.

NHS Bursary

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

Of course it would be. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; forgive me.

Let me read the petition for Hansard. The title is “Keep the NHS Bursary” and it says:

“At the moment, student nurses do not pay tuition fees, and receive a means tested bursary during their training. We are required, by the NMC, to have done at least 4,600 hours whilst studying, at least half of which are in practice.

Student nurses often work alongside our studies, like most students. But unlike most students, we work full time hours in placement for around half the year, and spend the rest of the time in lectures, without a summer holiday, or an Easter break, as well as completing our assignments. Taking away the NHS Bursary will force more student nurses into working 70 hour weeks, as many already do, it will compromise our studies and most of all, our patient care.”

I am sure that everybody here appreciates the work that nurses do in the NHS. I have had had to go to hospital many times with my family. My daughter was born prematurely and had to have a lumbar puncture within hours of birth; my son had his thumb set after he had dislocated it playing rugby—just opposite the local hospital, fortunately—and nurses tended incredibly patiently to my mother when she fractured her hip after a fall late on a Saturday night.

We know the endless hours that nurses work and the endless patience that they show in tending to us when we most need them, and when we are at our most vulnerable. It is important that we pay tribute to them for the work that they do. We must also pay tribute to those who want to enter the nursing service. They do so as a vocation and out of love; they do not do it for preferment, large salaries or anything like that. They do it to pay back and to serve us as members of the public, and for that we are very grateful.

Nurses do incredible work, which is more complex than ever. Many nurses are taking on more responsibilities, whether in adult nursing, child nursing, learning disability nursing or mental health nursing. Often, these days, they have to tell doctors what to do and how to lead on treatment.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that we are not just talking about student nurses? We have problems with trainee doctors at the moment, and the situation with the education maintenance grant. There is a big problem, particularly in the medical profession—and outside it, in relation to young people—with the future of care.

[Paul Scully]

We can always talk about the NHS and the future of care, but we have three hours for this debate, and I suspect most hon. Members want to speak, so I will limit my comments to nurses. I will quickly outline the current system and talk about why I believe it needs to change, then we can debate exactly how it might change.

There are various elements to the NHS bursary. There is a non-means-tested grant of £1,000 per year. There is a means-tested bursary to help with living costs of up to £3,191 for students in London living away from home, £2,643 for students outside London living away from home, or £2,207 for students living at home. Other bursary elements include an extra week’s allowance for courses that run for longer than 30 weeks and three days each academic year. As we heard at the event that we held before the debate, the majority of such courses last considerably longer than 30 weeks; they are often up to 42 or 43 weeks a year. Tuition fees are paid directly to the higher education institution by the NHS. Students can also apply for a non-income-assessed reduced rate maintenance loan from Student Finance England of between £1,744 and £3,263, depending on their circumstances. That loan is reduced in the final year of the course.

Why change? The current system, as some, but not all, student nurses, prospective student nurses and those in higher education institutions that train nurses agree, does not always work as well as it might for students or universities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Government and the NHS underestimate the extent to which staff at all levels are both working beyond their allocated shifts to plug gaps in the service and going without breaks. Given the settings that those staff work in, it is not in the interests of patients, let alone good for the welfare of the staff themselves, for them to be tired and not taking the breaks they ought to take.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One critical area at the moment is care in the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that the change to bursaries will have a big impact when we try to recruit community nurses for all sorts of illnesses?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I did not raise in the earlier Adjournment debate. Since that debate took place I have seen an article by Crystal Oldman in Independent Nurse magazine, which expressed concern about our ability to recruit nurses into community-based settings. If we are trying to prevent patients from presenting at accident and emergency, which is important to alleviate waiting times and the burden on A&E departments, it is vital that people can access timely care and support in the community. I do not believe the Government have fully considered that, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

In my Adjournment debate I also asked the Government whether they thought it was fair that students from the most deprived backgrounds should have their grants taken away while some of the wealthiest people in our society received tax cuts. I am not surprised that I did not receive an answer to that question, but it is a fair one. A lot of people wonder how, in straitened times, it is possible for the Government to find money for tax cuts for the wealthiest, but we cannot find money to ensure that people who perform vital functions in the NHS receive the support they need to get them through their training.

I asked the Minister in that debate how much debt the Government expect to write off because those indebted by the reforms are unable to pay their debts in full. That question was not answered. However, we know that in the case of the tuition fees brought in by the coalition Government, the current Government expect that the majority of students will see their debts written off, at cost to the taxpayer, further down the line.

I wonder about the Chancellor. Following him on economic policy at the moment is a bit like following a drunk driver: one minute he tells us that things are fantastic, and then the next minute he tells us that something called “the global economy” might have an impact on our domestic economy. I am glad that he has finally got that point, but I do not believe that he is currently being straight with the House and the public about how he intends to “fix the roof”, whether the sun is shining or not. It will be no good if some poor Chancellor 30 years down the line has to find huge amounts of money for debt write-off. This Chancellor needs to be clearer about where the money is really coming from.

On that point, I asked in the Adjournment debate which Department—the Department of Health or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—would meet the cost of servicing the resource accounting and budgeting charge for student loan debt. That question was not answered, although I am sure the Treasury and both those Departments have a view. It seems that the Government have not reached a clear position, and they really ought to have done so before embarking on this course of action.

I also asked the Minister about the Barnett consequentials for health education budgets in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He told the House that it was a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury, but I am afraid that we did not get any real detail about what the impact on those nations would be.

Will the Minister also say how clinical placements will be funded under the current loans system? He tells us that he has started discussions with Universities UK about that, but we would have expected the Government to have those discussions before embarking on a policy of this nature.

I also asked the Government whether they were at all concerned that applications from mature students might fall, given the detrimental impact that the coalition Government’s student finance reforms had on mature and part-time student numbers. The Minister did not give a reply, but we have heard in interventions this afternoon that that is a legitimate concern. We keep being told that all has been well since the coalition introduced the new tuition fees regime, and that student numbers in higher education are excellent. It is true that overall student numbers have gone up, but I do not think that there has been the necessary level of analysis about whether people are being deterred from applying. It is all very well saying that the numbers have gone up, but that does not tell me whether the regime deterred people from applying. However, we know for certain that it has had a particularly detrimental impact on the numbers of mature and part-time students. The issue of mature students ought to weigh heavily on the Government’s mind before they decide to proceed down this course on nursing bursaries, because it is clear that there will be big problems for the nursing profession if mature student numbers fall.

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What will the Secretary of State do about whistleblowers? As most Members know, we have had problems over the years with whistleblowing and people being victimised by the NHS after raising concerns.

[Mr Hunt]

Sir Robert Francis’s report “Freedom To Speak Up”, which I received and presented to Parliament just before the election, looked specifically at this issue and the difficult problems people face when they speak out about a problem in their trust. Sadly, on occasions, not only are they hounded out of that trust but they find it difficult to find a job anywhere else in the NHS, because word gets round on the old boys’ network. I think, however, that if we need whistleblowing at all, we have failed. We need a culture where, when people raise concerns, they are confident they will be listened to. That is a big statement to make, but other industries have managed it, including the airline, nuclear and oil industries. I do not think any health care service in any other country has managed to get this right. Individual hospitals—Salford Royal in this country, Virginia Mason in Seattle—have fantastic learning cultures, but I want the NHS to be the first whole health economy to get that culture right.

Cystic Fibrosis

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I warmly welcome the Minister, who, I am afraid, is very familiar with what I am speaking about today; I hope he gives me an A for effort and persistence. Given that we have spent so much time discussing access to Translarna, perhaps in his winding-up speech he will have some good news for me and my constituent.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). I am absolutely delighted that he secured this debate on access to medicines for people with cystic fibrosis and other rare diseases. Like me, he knows how important this issue is for families up and down England. I have been looking at the issues surrounding Duchenne muscular dystrophy for what seems like many years—in truth, it has been for just over a year. Only 90 boys affected by the disease in England are eligible for this drug, and the number is slightly larger across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a devastating condition that leads to full-time wheelchair use between the ages of eight and 11. It is a progressive, muscle-wasting disease that eventually affects the muscles involved in the respiratory and cardiac functions. Sadly, few with the condition live to see their 30th birthday. I have been working with Muscular Dystrophy UK, which fights causes to do with muscle-wasting conditions. I pay tribute to that organisation for all the support and help it gives. It not only informs Members of Parliament, but helps people affected by those diseases. My constituent, young Archie Hill, is an inspiration to everybody in this area. He has been campaigning for many years, and he and his family are indefatigable in their efforts to get the right medicine at the right time to these boys.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this timely debate. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) will recall, some months ago we all went to Downing Street to petition to get something done about muscular dystrophy. I am sure she would agree that one of the big problems is that even if the new treatments are okay, there is always a long run-in, in which negotiations take place between the Government and the pharmaceutical companies.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the other colleagues in the House who took part in that petition. That truly cross-party effort aimed to draw attention to the drugs that are not readily and fully available to our constituents. I was grateful that it was a cross-party delegation, because such things are much stronger when they take place in an atmosphere of good co-operation across the board rather than a political atmosphere. We saw parliamentarians at their best, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for attending that lobby at No. 10 Downing Street, which was inspired partly by Muscular Dystrophy UK and partly by the families it supports.

The issue for me is the drug that the hon. Member for Dudley North referred to. Translarna is its trademark name; it is called ataluren. It is produced by a company called PTC Therapeutics, which calls it its “lead product candidate” for these disorders. I know that the Minister is familiar with PTC Therapeutics, and I hope that in his winding-up speech he will refer to any contact he has had with the company. One of the issues surrounding the efficacy and licensing of the drug is the cost, so I hope the Minister will update us on that situation.

PTC Therapeutics states that the drug is a

“novel, orally administered small-molecule compound for the treatment of patients with genetic disorders due to a nonsense mutation. Ataluren is in clinical development for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy caused by a nonsense mutation…and cystic fibrosis caused by a nonsense mutation…Ataluren was granted conditional marketing authorization in the European Union under the trade name Translarna”.

I believe that it is already available in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is the first treatment approved for the underlying cause of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is a complicated condition.

Nonsense mutations are implicated in a variety of genetic disorders. They create a premature stop signal in the translation of the genetic code contained in the mRNA. That prevents the production of full-length, functional proteins. The company says that

“ataluren interacts with the ribosome, which is the component of the cell that decodes the mRNA molecule and manufactures proteins, to enable the ribosome to read through premature nonsense stop signals on mRNA and allow the cell to produce a full-length, functional protein. As a result…ataluren has the potential to be an important therapy for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and other genetic disorders for which a nonsense mutation is the cause of the disease.”

The importance of access to Translarna cannot be overstated. Boys such as my constituent Archie Hill have been waiting since August 2014 for a decision on whether Translarna will be approved in England. As I said, it is the first licensed drug to tackle an underlying genetic cause of Duchenne’s. It would help to keep Archie and these other boys walking for longer and potentially delay the onset of the devastating symptoms affecting the heart and lungs that I referred to earlier.

NICE’s appraisal of the drug is ongoing, but the families have not yet been made aware of when guidance will be issued, leaving them facing an anxious wait over the Christmas period. Over the time I have known Archie and his family, I have seen his mobility decrease; it is depressing to see such an active, energetic, lively, intelligent young man, who has his life before him, being denied a drug that could well keep him active for longer and improve his quality of life.

Junior Doctors’ Contracts

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) described what a junior doctor is, and that is really important. Many people think that being a junior doctor is just for the first couple of years, and isn’t it character-forming to work a bit hard and not have a lot of money? However, in the NHS, which is quite a hierarchical beast, a junior doctor is a junior doctor all the way until they are not a junior doctor and they become a senior doctor: either a consultant, as I was for the past 19 years, or a GP. That means we are talking about people who might be in their 30s, with children, families and mortgages. They are not youngsters who are able to move around flexibly and have very few financial commitments. It is important that we remember that.

It is obviously quite some time since I started as a junior doctor. More than 30 years ago, in 1982, we had absolutely no limits on hours. My light week was 57 hours; my heavy week was 132 hours. You just had no idea what your name was by the end of a weekend. It took more than 10 years of my career before the first new deal started to come in, in the early 1990s, and trusts or hospitals had to pay an additional premium to junior staff if they worked excessive hours. The definition of excessive hours at that time was still pretty lax, but it was the first step. It was tightened up in 2003, when the European working time directive came in. The Secretary of State talks about taking away those safeguards, but that he will replace them with something else. But with what? They have served us well. When trusts are in financial difficulties, the pressure on them to save money is likely to outweigh completely any little safeguard. The 48-hour working time directive does not come with punitive safeguards, and the financial one was important.

It is important to remember that the basic pay is already for 7 o’clock in the morning to 7 o’clock at night, Monday to Friday. That is a pretty long day for most people. It is proposed that the time covered by basic pay should be extended to 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 o’clock at night and include Saturday. What many people do not know is that a junior doctor starts at under £23,000 a year—below the benefit cap we have been arguing about. The salary is made up largely of out-of-hours.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that in any other walk of life that would be intolerable, yet we put up with this situation in the national health service? Secondly, does she agree we still have not seen the £8 billion the Government promised, during the general election, to put into the NHS?

[Dr Whitford]

I totally agree with that.

As mentioned on both sides of the House, people do not work in an NHS hospital to make a lot of money. It is not high up the list of ways for the smartest people in our country to make money; it is a vocation, which means we have a responsibility not to exploit them. The Secretary of State says that no one will lose money, but what will happen to the people who start next August? After the first hours change, when I started my surgical career in Belfast, the “two in three” rota—every third evening off and no weekends off for a year—was no longer legal, and the hospital henceforth considered extra hours to be voluntary service. The NHS is a hierarchical organisation, bullying exists within it, and the junior doctor is in a weak position. These safeguards have worked well for a long time, and I would be reluctant to see them go.

Operational Productivity in NHS Providers

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered operational productivity in NHS providers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I welcome the Minister to his role. I believe this may be his first Westminster Hall debate, and I am greatly pleased that I am the Member who secured the debate.

The national health service featured heavily in the recent general election campaign. I recall speaking at several hustings and telling my constituents that I recognised that this Parliament would witness an increasing demand for NHS services. On occasion I was challenged on how the additional £8 billion highlighted by the Stevens review would be found. My response, then and now, is that the greatest efficiencies can be identified within current services without undermining patient care. Such a view is shared by Simon Stevens, but most interestingly it is a view shared by others, including my constituents Philip Braham and David Green, who established a medical recruitment company called Remedium Partners. I am pleased that both gentlemen are here today in the Public Gallery.

Having met Mr Braham and Mr Green before the election, I was eager to re-establish contact with them earlier this month to discuss their ideas about NHS efficiency in employment. It is possible that more cynical Members will say that this is more evidence of the Conservative party seeking to introduce greater private sector involvement in the NHS for others to make a profit, but that would be an incorrect assertion to make. In fact, I found our discussion focusing on opportunities to save the NHS more money and prevent its resources being plundered by unscrupulous individuals.

The publication of Lord Carter of Coles’s interim report, “Review of Operational Productivity in NHS providers”—hence the title of this debate—two days before our meeting could not have been more fortuitous. The report outlined four areas where Lord Carter believes greater efficiencies could be achieved to allow additional moneys to be spent on front-line care. One objective in seeking today’s debate was to air the issues and to place them on the public record. Lord Carter’s efficiencies within the NHS include saving £1 billion from improved hospital pharmacy and medicines optimisation, £1 billion from the NHS estate, £1 billion from improvements to procurement management, and £2 billion from improvements in workflow and encompassing workforce costs.

Workforce costs is the area that I intend to focus on in this debate, as I have discussed it directly with my constituents and because just a 1% increase in workforce productivity could achieve as much as £400 million of savings. This is a significant and important area of the work of the NHS. Lord Carter believes that the £2 billion figure would be achieved without making anyone redundant and without seeking to increase the responsibilities of staff, nor would it mean decreased levels of remuneration for future employees. What it does mean is a greater command of management control on non-productive time, which are the periods when staff emphasis is not on direct patient care—days and shifts of annual leave, sickness and training. It also includes better management of rosters, improved guidance on appropriate staffing levels and skill ranges for certain types of wards.

The NHS is one of the largest employers in this country, employing more than 1.3 million staff in more than 300 different types of roles. In the last year that figures were available, the cost to the NHS budget was £45.3 billion, the largest proportion of the £118 billion budget. The cost of nurses alone totals £19 billion, and with the increased number required for safer staffing and a third increase in the number of nurses leaving the profession in the past two years, the reliance on agency nurses will see this figure rising.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

When the hon. Gentleman talks about increasing the productivity of staff, can he itemise which staff he is referring to and say how much would actually be saved?

[Dr Offord]

We are talking about all the different staff. There are 300 different employment roles in the NHS, so we are talking about everyone across the NHS, but I hope later in my speech to come to the specifics of clinicians and the use of agency staff for that sort of role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak.

I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) that of course there are always efficiencies to be made, and ways of considering how they can be made; NHS managers and staff, including clinical staff, spend a great deal of their time doing that. My intervention about counter-fraud was meant to suggest that that work becomes part of the way that people start thinking about their work as public servants. However, this debate needs to be widened out beyond the individual savings that have been mentioned. As the King’s Fund has said, the greatest savings achieved in the NHS since 1948 were made since 2010, largely through reductions to pay and central budgets, and some restructuring. Having said that, I am slightly sceptical about the savings that can be made through restructuring.

We need to move this debate on to a discussion about quality in its widest sense, because quality is an organising principle of the NHS; ultimately, quality will deliver greater savings and contribute towards the £22 billion target. It will also involve people much more in the management of their healthcare, so that we save money that is currently spent on public health interventions. We must also ensure that when people use the health service, they understand where savings can be made. If we were able to involve patients and others much more in that debate, we would find more good examples of what we have been discussing. There are some great examples from Bristol, particularly around environmental savings. There have been some fantastic projects to reduce consumption of energy, both at Universities Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, and at North Bristol NHS Trust. There is also the reskilling that takes place within the community services organisations, to make better use of the highly skilled community nurses and to help people with the flow in and out of hospital.

However, all these measures require the system to be stable and require some transitional support to allow the transformation to happen. At the moment, I am not sure that the NHS feels it has the support to make that happen, as individual examples that will not yield overall results are being picked out. I welcome this debate about productivity, but I hope that we can have a degree of political honesty about the scale of the challenge of the £22 billion cuts.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about efficiency, which is one thing; productivity is something totally different. Productivity is what the individual produces, whereas efficiency is really about how the individual works. Does my hon. Frind agree?

[Karin Smyth]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is the environment in which an individual works and is supported into work that helps to boost productivity. I think we would all agree that generally people want to be as productive in the service as they can be, and they are very cognisant of their role as public servants. As I say, I would like to see political honesty and discussion about the scale of the £22 billion cuts. It is hard to see where they will come from, regardless of pay restraint, cuts to services and major reconfigurations. Those changes may need to happen, but there needs to be honesty across all parties in the House to support their introduction.

There is wide-scale agreement about the problems that the NHS faces, beyond the items that the hon. Member for Hendon mentioned, but now that the election has passed it is time for us to consider the solutions that can be achieved to support staff in making that transformation, and in making the NHS highly productive, as well as one of the most efficient services in the world.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am glad to speak in this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing it.

Obviously, in Scotland the situation is slightly different, because the NHS is devolved, but many issues cross over, wherever our health services are located. I was very interested in some of the points made. NHS Scotland has produced a framework for efficiency and productivity going up to 2015. We recognise that it is essential to be more efficient and productive, to ensure careful use of the public purse.

To an extent, the situation in Scotland is slightly different, because the NHS budget has been protected from cuts as a result of the Scottish Government’s action. However, we still face inflationary pressures arising from demographic changes and increasing drugs and staff costs, which mean that NHS boards will need to make a minimum of 3% efficiency savings just to break even.

I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the many issues faced by the NHS, particularly in England. I understand that much of the savings to date have been made by freezing staff salaries, squeezing prices paid to hospitals for the treatment they provide and cutting management costs. I wonder whether there is a correlation between those savings and the frauds and difficulties in some hospitals, which he mentioned. We all want to cut management costs, but sometimes there is a cost to doing that, because if management is cut back it cannot have the same hands-on experience of what is going on in all areas of the operation. That has to be weighed in the balance when we consider such savings.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Carter review and the time spent by people on the frontline, whether with patients or doing other things. Again, that has to be built in. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made a good point about the difference between productivity and efficiency. A staff member could be deemed much more efficient if they just dealt with patients, but down time for staff has to be worked into the system, because any doctor, nurse, or other NHS staff member will be working at a high level for very long periods. There are dangers if down time is not built in.

All of us would want savings made where they can be safely made, but the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made an interesting point about the King’s Fund, which estimates that another £30 billion of savings will be required by 2020-21. The Government have made much of the fact that they will put another £8 billion into the NHS. Although I am sure that is welcome, it still leaves £22 billion in savings to be achieved through productivity improvements. With the best will in the world, I find it difficult to envisage £22 billion of savings being made through productivity improvements in the NHS. If it can be achieved, that is fair and well, but it does seem a very tall order, as the King’s Fund stated.

An organisation cannot keep freezing staff wages forever; there will have to be a change in that regard. Management costs cannot be cut indefinitely, because, again, management is needed to run the system.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Admittedly, it has been some years since I was involved in negotiations relating to productivity, and so forth, but the fact remains that there are consequences if people are not paid a decent wage. I worked in industries where wages were frozen and saw the consequences. The only way to increase productivity in the NHS and maybe save money—I use the word “maybe” advisedly—is by having incentives. That is the only way it can be done. It was not clear, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), what percentage of people would have time off. There is a tolerable, acceptable percentage in that regard, but I was not clear what the percentages were.

[Mike Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is right about incentives. A happy workforce will be a much more productive workforce. There is a danger of putting increasing pressure on the workforce, especially in the NHS, where mistakes can be disastrous and can do a lot of damage in the long term, both to the system and patients. We have to be careful about some of these things. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Hendon said about the cost of agency workers. I think we would all agree on that point. It would be preferable to have full-time staff in the NHS, but agency workers are used for a reason: shortages.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about people from outside the EU working in the NHS, but again, this shows that there needs to be a more holistic Government policy. The Government recently announced an earnings threshold of £36,000, under immigration policy, for those who have been working in this country for six years. Many nurses working in the NHS throughout the United Kingdom are not earning that sort of money and have been in the NHS for many years. The Royal College of Nursing stated that if this policy was imposed, thousands of nurses could leave the NHS and could have to leave the UK. That is not in the best interests of the health service at the moment. When considering efficiency savings and how the NHS can better work for all our constituents throughout the UK, we have to think about such things .

[Mike Weir]

The hon. Gentleman read my mind: that was my next point. Agency nurses are causing a drain on resources, because we have to employ so many already. That will not get any better if nurses cannot work in the NHS because of immigration policy. These people did not come to this country a few months ago; some have been here for many years. Many of these nurses are working in hospitals in all parts of the UK, whether Scotland, Northern Ireland or England. They are also working in the care system.

The Government are making a bad situation worse, perhaps because of other pressures on them to do with immigration, and are not dealing with the realities of the health service. Training new nurses to take the place of those who may leave will not happen overnight. It takes years to train a nurse properly. If these people have to leave suddenly, they will leave a huge hole in the NHS. That raises a question about the sustainability of the system. In summing up, the Minister might like to consider that; and perhaps he will take the matter up with Home Office colleagues and discuss the impact this policy may have on the NHS.

Efficiency savings are fine where they can be made. We are all looking for efficiency savings, and we understand that there can be some. For example, there are some interesting responses in the Carter review on medicines and prescriptions. Savings could be made there. A lot of medicines can be wasted if prescriptions are too large. Such system changes can save money, but it is wrong to look for the silver bullet that is going to change things and produce the £22 billion in efficiency and improvement savings.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks back 12 months or so, he may remember that it took a long time for the Secretary of State to reach an agreement with the pharmaceutical companies because some issues were held up. We should consider that. It seems to me that a gun was held to the Secretary of State’s head on costs.

[Mike Weir]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One difficulty with the NHS is the cost of medicines. All our constituents are pushing us to get costly new medicines on the NHS for diseases, including rare diseases. They might be extremely costly in the first instance for good reasons, but demand always increases costs in the system, and it is difficult to deal with that. The pharmaceutical companies have a role to play in that, because much of their business comes through the national health service. If cost savings can be made by negotiating with those companies, that should be done. I am sure that the Secretary of State will at all times try to persuade them on that point, but I am not so sure how well he will do, given the competing pressures from constituents and Members for new drugs to be made available on the NHS. None of these issues are easy, and I have some sympathy for Ministers who are struggling with them, especially given the pressures on all areas of Government spending, but I urge caution in looking for simple solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I apologise for having had to step out of the Chamber for a minute or two. I expected the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) to be a wee bit longer. It is always a pleasure to speak on these issues, and I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for bringing this subject to the House for our consideration.

The Carter report is important. Members will know that health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and the responsibility for health falls clearly on the Northern Ireland Assembly and my party colleague Simon Hamilton, but it is important that we consider the issues and the recommendations in the report. I will speak to that in a few minutes, but first I pay tribute to all those who, despite the numerous difficulties facing us, make our NHS one of the premier care services in the world.

The tireless work of the doctors, nurses, surgeons, technicians, pharmacists, auxiliaries, cleaners, cooks, porters and those who work in admin behind the scenes has not gone unnoticed. I am sure everyone here would start by thanking them for their contributions, their efforts and the exhausting work they do. I thank them for their smiles to the patients and families, sometimes when the workers are so exhausted they can barely stand. I thank them for staying those extra 10 and 15 minutes beyond what they are paid for to make a patient comfortable. I thank them for choosing to come to work and sometimes having to face abuse from tired and perhaps frightened people. I thank them for retaining their dignity and helpful nature. In this debate, we do not stand in judgment on the NHS or the workers; rather, we look at the procedures in place and how we as Members of Parliament can help to make the NHS, which we are fortunate to have across all the regions, more effective for everyone.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned long hours. Some of the young trainee doctors are doing a 12-hour day, seven days a week. That can go on for months. That is not exactly conducive to good morale in the national health service, is it?

[Jim Shannon]

None of us here said that it was. It is important that our doctors and the staff are not over-tired.

The Carter report sets out how efficiencies can be delivered. The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) who spoke before me clearly outlined the issues. The title of the debate refers to Lord Carter’s review of productivity in hospitals, and the interim report of that review, “Review of operational productivity in NHS providers”, which was published on 11 June. We all know that Lord Carter of Coles was appointed by the Health Secretary to chair the NHS procurement and efficiency board in June 2014, to review the operational productivity of NHS hospitals and to establish the opportunities for efficiency savings across the NHS. To do that, Lord Carter and the review board worked with a group of 22 NHS providers across England, and I think that what they have found in England will be replicated for us in Northern Ireland and for our colleagues in Scotland and Wales. There are lessons to learn, so we should take note of what the report says.

As I said, an interim report was published on 11 June outlining the work that has been carried out and the interim recommendations and next steps. The full report is to come in the autumn, and I look forward to seeing what it says. Back home, people are sick to death of the term “efficiency savings”, the idiotic behaviour of Sinn Féin and the Social Democratic and Labour party and others and the funding penalties we are facing. Our NHS is being asked to do the impossible and be more efficient than it is, but when I look at the findings of the interim report, I see things that may extend to our running of the NHS in Northern Ireland. That is what the Carter report is about, and I am sure the Minister will give his thoughts on that shortly. The report sets out ways we could ease the pressure off front-line services and enable the functioning of our country while we wait for action to cease the penalties and see Northern Ireland receiving what she is entitled to—what we would be getting, were it not for the inability of Sinn Féin to do what its Members were elected to do and work for the people. That, however, is a different debate for another day, and I accept that.

The interim report suggests that the NHS in England could look to make savings of some £5 billion per annum by 2019-20 and reports three major areas of opportunity. The first is hospitals getting a stronger grip on the utilisation of resources, particularly in four areas: workforce, hospital pharmacy and medicines, estates management and procurement. The second is achieving greater productivity in hospital workflow—how patients move through the system—and the subsequent use of assets such as operating theatres. I have always felt we could look at that, and the Carter report has examined it and offered some ideas on how it could work. The final area is gaining a better understanding of the need for hospitals to develop sub-acute services, either on their own or in collaboration with others, to facilitate the discharge of patients. It is about making it work better together.

We need a way of ensuring the highest quality of patient care, delivered at the lowest price possible to ensure that more funding can be diverted to cancer drugs. Members will know that I have advocated ensuring the availability of cancer drugs across the whole United Kingdom, rather than that being down to postcode. In Northern Ireland, we would like to use prescription charges to put some money towards cancer drugs. I know that the Government have given a commitment and that there is some help for the devolved Administrations when it comes to cancer drugs, but not to the extent that we would like. We also need more funding diverted to research and other areas.

I was surprised to see in the report that one hospital could save up to £750,000 a year by improving the way it deals with staff rosters, annual leave, sickness and flexible working. That was just one example, which would regain the £10,000 a month the hospital was losing due to people claiming too much annual leave. That is an easy way of getting money back into hospitals. Ensuring every hospital pays the best price for medicines and supplies would save money that could be invested in front-line care. One hospital with 23 operating theatres improved the way it tracks the products used during surgery and saved £230,000 in the first year alone. I am not saying that every hospital could do that, but it is an example of what can be done, and it would be unwise to ignore it.

When the Hansard report of this debate becomes available, I will send a copy to my colleague, the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Simon Hamilton, to make him aware of the Carter report and this debate. Helpful lessons may emerge that we could use. For example, a hospital was using the soluble version of a steroid for multiple illnesses and paying £1.50 a tablet when the solid version costs just 2p a tablet. Using the soluble version only for children and patients who have trouble swallowing saved £40,000 every year. Those may be small examples, but they collectively show how something could happen. I have some concerns. Cheap is not always best, and we have many examples of the copying of tablets in China and elsewhere. Those tablets are not as effective and may be harmful, so we have to monitor how we best ensure that cheaper drugs are effective and tackle the diseases they are designed to tackle.

We must take these issues in hand if we are to see the best possible use of funding. With the publication of the full report in the autumn, we will have a better idea of where we are. I hope that that report will be seen not as a stick to beat the NHS with—if it is, that will be for the wrong reasons—but as a ray of light that will help make things better. I very much look forward to seeing what it says about how we can improve things here in England, because we will then, I hope, be able to use that example to improve things across the water in Northern Ireland and perhaps in Scotland, for my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Angus.

Drugs: Ultra-rare Diseases

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It has been a pleasure working with him and others. We must continue to do so. That leads me on to the fiasco of the decision-making process. The leadership of NHS England should hang their heads in shame over the way they have handled this. There is also a responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister, who I know cares about this, but he needs to get a grip of NHS England and the way that it has failed families. Part of the problem goes back to the passing of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which led to the disbanding of the advisory group for national specialised services in April 2013. That advisory group was the expert body that advised on specialist treatments and services, and it was respected by many rare disease charities.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. There are muscular dystrophy treatments in Europe that have suddenly been halted in this country. I hope the Minister can give us a good answer on that because people are suffering while there are delays. In some instances, it could shorten their lives.

[Greg Mulholland]

I hope that we get answers today and a real promise of intervention from the Minister.