Mitochondrial Replacement (Public Safety)

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a former NHS scientist, I would like to speak in support of the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Whatever our personal views on the ethics of mitochondrial transfer, it is remarkable from a procedural point of view that the Government are considering putting these regulations before the House before the critical pre-clinical tests by their own body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, have been performed, written up and peer reviewed. I am not against research. I support scientific research, but scientific research that is safe. That is the situation in America, where this was put on the back burner basically because of the issue of safety.

In my humble opinion, it is scientific practice to presume that tests will yield positive results. That has had the whiff of manipulating the evidence to fit the hypothesis. In this case, however, it is even worse, as the necessary evidence has yet to be produced. Such a methodology would not stand up in the scientific community, and if it is not good enough for the scientific community, it is not good enough for this House. We must wait for these results and examine them in detail. After all, we are talking about the possibility of permitting techniques which could be—I repeat, could be—disabling to the children who are created through them. As Members of Parliament elected by the people, we should be made fully aware of the risks and safety concerns surrounding these new techniques before voting on whether they should be allowed.

There are three camps in this debate. There are those who oppose mitochondrial transfer for ethical reasons and those who are strongly in favour, but there is another group: those who are in favour but are concerned about safety. The votes of this third group will be determined by the available evidence. That evidence has not yet been produced. I am not talking about the more stringent evidence asked for by the world-renowned US Food and Drug Administration in its recent report on the subject, but the few tests that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—a clear and obvious supporter of the techniques—recommended as the critical bare minimum to be completed before progressing. We do not have the results of those tests. Does the Minister agree that it would be a subversion of due process to ask Parliament to vote pre-emptively on them?

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate, though, that the HFEA’s expert panel is commending these techniques, and that if the regulations are passed, the responsibility for safely licensing each application will still rest with the HFEA, so the safety process will still be in place? This is a permissive step.

[Jim Dobbin]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but may I refer him to Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert? He is sympathetic to this process but fears that science is racing ahead of ethics. He says that we are in danger of creating designer eugenic babies, and we do not know where we are going in future.

Denying Parliament the opportunity to examine these results seems difficult to defend. In effect, it would be asking the House to vote blind on the safety of techniques that the House might reject outright on the basis of the results. Let us be clear and honest about this: the results could not be published and peer reviewed in time for the rumoured vote in the autumn. I end with a clear and simple question to the Minister: do the Government intend to ask Parliament to vote on these regulations before the HFEA’s suggested critical tests are performed, written up and peer reviewed; and if so, why?

Mitochondrial Transfer (Three-Parent Children)

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a risk, and there are others. Already in the United States a different price is charged depending on the educational qualifications of the donor. There are worries about eugenics, a point I was going to come on to.

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co- op)]

The head of the United States Food and Drug Administration advisory committee on this matter, Evan Snyder, has said that there are not enough clinical data to suggest that mitochondrial transfer is safe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present UK regulator and the UK Government should be cautious in approaching this technique?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. That is at the heart of the issue.

Hepatitis C (Haemophiliacs)

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for helpfully highlighting the role of specialist nurses. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an indication of the importance of the role of nurses and therefore the importance of retaining them and ensuring that the numbers are correct.

Just a few minutes spent reading the stories of victims and their families on the taintedblood.info website brings a lump to the throat. In this House, where we have the privilege to represent our constituents, we cannot continue to leave the families behind. I wholeheartedly support the removal of the two-tier system, which would entitle people to an annual sum to help them to cope with the side effects of this terrible disease and would take a little pressure off the families who are faced with watching their loved one fade away before their eyes. It is well past time that we do the right thing by those affected, and that will not be done by separating and segregating those infected by the same disease. I urge the Minister to take on board what is said today by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and others and to do the obvious and right thing by providing the apology and response that we need.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 20 minutes to 11 and five or six hon. Members want to speak, so I ask them to watch the length of their speeches before I have to impose limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nick Harvey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and there will be anxiety on that front in many quarters. We have to hope desperately that what he is suggesting does not come to pass, because we are going to have to learn the lessons of the past. It is essential that we have proper controls over this sector for the future.

A number of hon. Members have referred to the means by which support is given to the sufferers and their families, and some good points have been made about the two-stage process effectively being a two-tier system. There were also some very sensible suggestions about Atos and the all-work test, because the fact of the matter is that the current system of financial support is patchy and insufficient. The Government need to revisit the issue urgently.

The challenge is partly for the new Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), whom I welcome to her post, but it is also a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. It must recognise the unique circumstances of this community as a whole and come up with a comprehensive settlement once and for all, so that the victims, the widows and the families affected by the tragedy can get on with the rest of their lives.

I agree very much with those who have paid tribute to the current Prime Minister for having been willing to go into events of the past. He has not always been universally praised for doing so, but he has gone and tangled with some tricky issues from the past. This is another such case and he would be well advised to do the same with it. We have to learn lessons from these tragic events, put things right now and ensure that nothing similar can happen again.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

We have two speakers left and approximately 15 minutes for them both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing this important debate. I know that many colleagues feel passionately about the issue. Indeed, one can feel little else when one realises what a long and painful shadow has been cast on the haemophiliac community. They are people who put their faith in a system that has let them down.

I welcome the points raised by other right hon. and hon. Members on the anomalies in financial support for those who contracted hepatitis C. Indeed, those issues have affected one of my own constituents, Mr Dennis, who was infected with hepatitis C in the 1980s and has since been diagnosed with polyarthritis and, most recently, with liver cancer. He has raised with me on a number of occasions the lack of additional support for those with tertiary conditions such as polyarthritis, as well as his difficulty in obtaining disability benefits, for which previous assessments have been based on his mobility rather than his ability to care for himself and to undertake everyday tasks. Although polyarthritis affects only some 4% of chronic hepatitis C sufferers, it has had a huge impact on Mr Dennis’s quality of life.

There is another group that warrants significant attention, however: those who contracted HIV through their NHS treatment. When we talk about financial support mechanisms, we should learn from their experience of the Macfarlane Trust, which sadly, is not a tale of best practice. One person said that the trust

“neither cares nor understands what we have been, or are, going through”.

Another said that the trust is:

“No longer fit for purpose”.

A third person said that the trust is:

“An embarrassment to the government that funds it”.

Those are just a selection of the damning descriptions of the Macfarlane Trust that I have received from both beneficiaries and, significantly, trustees. I know that Health Ministers have tried hard to regain the trust of the haemophilia community, but the sad fact is that their efforts are constantly undermined by the failings of the Macfarlane Trust.

We cannot turn the clock back and undo the damage done, nor can we pretend that we can wholly make up for the years of distress. However, we can, and must, ensure that the support provided by the Government is not administered in a way that serves as a further source of anger, upset and frustration. Yet I hear time and time again that that is the daily frustrating experience of many beneficiaries. The experience is that policies are created ad hoc with little continuity or clarity, that intrusive and personal details are demanded in response to the simplest of requests and that the attitude towards beneficiaries is one of arrogance. Beneficiaries feel at best confused, and at worst bullied, by the very organisation created to support them.

In preparing for this debate, I have spoken to two previous trustees, who both suggested that the management of the trust was completely out of tune with the needs of beneficiaries. They described an organisation that was completely unwilling to make the case for further funding from the Department of Health and that dismissed complaints without due care and attention. Although I recognise that the trust is independent of the Department, the Minister must recognise the harm that is being done and, in turn, how that reflects on her Government.

I know many of those concerns were raised with the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), during the recent AGM of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and I therefore hope that the Minister will continue with the internal review that I understand was subsequently initiated, and that she will agree to meet with representatives from across the community. The community do not want to be perceived as victims forced to go “cap in hand” to beg for support.

Clare Walton, another of my constituents, says:

“I want to be empowered, and have autonomy over my own life, rather than continue with this victim culture through charity.”

The sobering reality is that the Government cannot afford to wait another 20 years. The people who need support are dying in ever increasing numbers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) rightly commented, the Prime Minister has an outstanding record of seeking to address historical wrongs. Personally, I cannot think of a better time to address

“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.”

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part for their time discipline in this extremely important debate.

Veterans (Mental Health)

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. Sadly, we do not give anything like the attention we should to the consequences of our decisions to go to war. There are even instances where attempts seem to have been made to suppress knowledge of those consequences. In the past, it was possible for me as a Back Bencher to read out the names of all those who had fallen in the Iraq war and later in the Afghan war. Such practice is now expressly forbidden by the rules of the House. If I attempted to read out those names and their ranks today—I think that they would make a greater impression than any speech that I could make—it would take about 25 minutes to complete the list. The House has decided that it does not want to hear that, so it will never happen again.

There was an attempt to change the system of announcing the names of the fallen at Prime Minister’s Question Time. The names were announced on a Monday and a Tuesday, but MPs protested, saying that they wanted to hear those names announced at a time when hon. Members and the press could give them their maximum attention, so we have now gone back to the original time. I believe that the country wishes to understand the consequences of war.

I want to mention the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). If I have the hon. Gentleman’s permission to mention the details, I will be happy to relay the story. The case of Sergeant Dan Collins has moved everyone. He went to war at the age of 29. He was optimistic and courageous and had a brilliant record of service. He was shot on two occasions and on two other occasions, he was damaged by improvised explosive devices, but the incidents that tormented him the most were the deaths of two of his friends, one of whom died in the most dreadful circumstances, having lost a number of limbs. The sergeant was holding him as he died. It was that incident that tormented him. He had fine treatment from his family, a loving girlfriend and help from the local charity, Healing the Wounds. Tragically, he took his own life earlier this year—he had attempted to do so before.

If today’s tragedies are confirmed, the number who have fallen is 404. Sergeant Dan Collins will not be numbered among those and neither will many others. The results of the Afghan war will be seen not just in the numbers of the dead and the civilian dead, who are uncounted, but in the 2,000 soldiers who are now broken in body or mind. It is right that we should do all that we can to treat them with the greatest care.

We should say a word of thanks to the Welsh Government, who have taken this matter very seriously. Recently, the Welsh Minister for Health, Lesley Griffiths, announced that she was setting up a £500,000 fund to ensure that every health authority in Wales has a specialised doctor with experience in dealing with veterans to deal with those who come back from the war. It is absolutely right that we do not disguise or shy away from the consequences of our actions.

In my time in Parliament, we went to war in Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. We stayed in Afghanistan mainly on the pretext of a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from the Taliban. That threat did not exist; there were threats from al-Qaeda, but not from the Taliban. We are now being told that we should contemplate war against Iran on the basis that it has missiles carrying nuclear weapons with a range of 6,000 miles, which do not exist.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the mental health of veterans? The scope is getting a bit too wide.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful for your patience, Mr Dobbin. Finally, when we establish a code of conduct and a covenant between us and the soldiers, our main duty should be to put as the first line a pledge that we will never go into a war that is unnecessary. That is our duty in this House. If we are to avoid fatalities and more people being mentally damaged, our main task is to resist those who cry for war.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 3.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I was not planning to speak, Mr Dobbin.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

No, I did not think that you were.

[Andrew Percy]

I will speak only for three or four minutes, which I think will give the shadow Minister and the Minister longer than they were expecting; but as there was not a line of hon. Members waiting to speak, I thought that I would add my voice to this important debate. I apologise, Mr Dobbin, for not dropping you a note.

I congratulate my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), on securing this important debate on a vital issue. There are no party politics involved; we all agree about the sort of services that we want provided for ex-service personnel. I just want to tell the story of a constituent of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). He is the gentleman whom I mentioned earlier, Charles Brindley, who is the vice-chairman of the Royal British Legion in Brigg, in my constituency. He has been trying to put together a project in the area to establish better mental health and support services for veterans. He is trying to co-ordinate through the councils, and I am pleased that North Lincolnshire council has taken him up on his offer of working with it.

There is so much involved in trying to bring everything together. The e-mails that we have had from Charles Brindley and the discussions that we have had with him have been quite enlightening. He has been trying to work with the Prison Service, and he found out that one prison does not have a dedicated individual to respond to ex-service personnel there. He has been trying to work with the primary care trusts and GPs on the very point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman): raising GPs’ awareness of what is available through the NHS for ex-service personnel. He has also been trying to work with other organisations that I would not even have thought of, such as Age UK, which has told him that older people may now be starting to present with mental health problems that go a long way back.

A range of organisations and institutions come across ex-service personnel at different points in their lives and provide them with services, and the fact that they are not necessarily always joined up concerns me. Some of what is happening can certainly be brought together under the auspices of the local authorities, but I echo the idea of a dedicated veterans agency. The example that is probably most similar to what we want are the incredibly dedicated services, including specialist health services, provided to veterans in the United States, where veterans seem to be provided with a lot of support that we in this country sadly do not give.

As many Members have said, it is often far down the line that mental health problems start to rear up. This summer, I met one of my ex-pupils walking through the town centre. I had not seen him since I taught him when he was about 16, and I asked him what he had been doing since then. He said, “I’ve been out in Afghanistan.” I think he was in a Yorkshire regiment. He said, “I got shot. I’ll show you.” He then rolled up his trouser leg to show me his bullet wounds. I asked him if he was okay, and he said, “I’m absolutely fine. I’m going to get paid out now. I’m going to get a better pension, and I’m going to get a house. Everything’s fine.” He may think that he is fine now, but in 10 or 15 years’ time, with his career in the military effectively ended, a mental health problem, as we know, could rear its head. What will there be to support that individual then? He is getting a lot of support from the Army at the moment—he had no criticism of that—but in 10 or 20 years’ time, that support might not be there, or he might not know how to access it.

NHS (Essex)

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my almost-neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). She made an incredibly powerful case about the individual against the state and the powerlessness that people feel against state agencies, which is why we need to return power to the people. I thank her for securing this important debate. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) has been to all the hospitals in Essex apart from Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow. I strongly recommend it; it is a good place.

As has been mentioned, Essex is a large county, with five primary care trusts and more than 1.4 million people, which is roughly the same population as Northern Ireland’s. Some variation in such a large area is natural, but sadly, my constituency contains serious health inequalities, despite the best efforts of local staff and the Princess Alexandra hospital. Addressing them is not just about health and a stronger work force; to me, it is also about social justice.

I have three points. First, we suffer from significant health inequalities, as I said. Secondly, Harlow has a good hospital; it has its problems, but I strongly support its bid for foundation status. Thirdly, we have a history of funding problems, particularly in west Essex—I am glad to move from north Essex to west Essex—and they must be addressed.

On health inequalities, sadly, more men die from alcohol-related causes in Harlow than in any other district in Essex. The latest statistics show that there are 45 such deaths in Harlow every year, double the rate in nearby Uttlesford and about 50% more than the east of England average of 30 a year. I accept that Harlow is a major town, but families there are struggling with a particular problem, and the rate is higher than in similar towns in Essex such as Colchester and Basildon. Harlow also experiences some of the worst rates of child and adult obesity in Essex. Government statistics show that one in five 11-year-olds in Harlow is obese before leaving primary school. Some 55% of 15-year-olds in Essex drink alcohol, 19% are regular smokers and 13% use drugs, but the problem is particularly acute in Harlow. The rate of adult drug abuse in Essex is 4.8 per 1,000, but in Harlow it is nearly double, at 8.3 per 1,000.

I do not want to paint a negative picture of Harlow. I am proud of my town and constituency. There is some good news. Local faith and charitable groups are aware of the challenges and are responding to them. The organisation Open Road runs an SOS bus and does other anti-drug work, helping people access advice, information, support and more formal treatment if needed. Some other remarkable drug rehab charities do essential work behind the scenes. There are many walking groups, and I have been to a number of events organised by the Harlow athletics club, which is one of the most distinguished groups in the region. Projects such as Kickz work with young people, providing football, boxing and other fitness pursuits.

In that context, Princess Alexandra hospital has had problems, but hopefully it will become a foundation hospital. With a new chairman and chief executive, the hospital is making a strong bid for foundation status, which I support. I have found the chairman of the hospital, Mr Coteman, to be open, honest and straight-talking about the difficulties that we face in Harlow. He is also dedicated. On Christmas day, I visited the hospital wards with Harlow hospital radio and was astonished to see not only that the chairman was going around visiting patients, but that he had brought his whole family with him after travelling from Cambridge for the day. That shows a lot of commitment to the hospital.

It is not just Mr Coteman. I visited the cancer ward at Addison House with Robert Duncombe. The ward is very well run. We have talked a lot about waste and bureaucracy, and of course, we have those problems, but it is a completely different story at Addison House, where five staff share a small office, and when I say small, I mean really small.

The Princess Alexandra hospital is at the cutting edge of research, with its cellular pathology laboratories, for which I hope NHS support will continue. Having visited the laboratories, I know that the genius of their people and their technology is remarkable and bests anything in the private sector. However, the difficult environment means that the Princess Alexandra hospital needs the foundation status for which it has applied in order to take its work to the next level.

I want to touch upon the history of the funding problems in west Essex, which are all the more serious given the health inequalities that I have described. Under the previous Government, West Essex primary care trust struggled with the 20th worst deficit in the UK, and the black hole for 2009-10 was nearly £2 million. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to increase health spending in each year of this Parliament, but it is a question not only of getting the right resources, but of spending the money wisely.

When I was a parliamentary candidate, I found out, via a freedom of information request, about a £700,000 cut in funds to the NHS walk-in centre in Harlow. Finances had been mismanaged, so much of the investment was wasted. There have been serious problems with health management, as well as health inequalities, which we must address under the new ways of devolving purchasing power to GPs. I particularly welcome the pledge to remove strategic health authorities, because they seem to be a complete waste of resources and an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy. That money would be much better ploughed into the work of nurses, doctors and health visitors on the front line. I think that the Health Secretary said at the Conservative conference that managers have so far been cut by 2,000 and that front-line staff have been increased by 2,700. I am sure that the Minister will want to clarify that.

On NHS fuel and petrol allowances for workers, I was astonished to discover when I visited my mental health trust that NHS mental health professionals who use their cars all day for their work—this is not just about commuting, but about visiting patients—get tiny fuel allowances, some just 12p a mile. I have tried to investigate the issue, but there seems to be a spaghetti junction of authorities that decide what the rate is. It is unfair, when petrol is at £1.35 a litre, that their fuel allowances are so low. I urge that dedicated NHS professionals who use their cars all day for their work should get a decent fuel allowance.

We must deal with the health inequalities in Harlow. To coin a phrase, we must be tough on health problems, but tough on the causes of health problems, too. Ultimately, the evidence is that we need more early intervention and preventive work, but the cause of many health problems is social deprivation. It is jobs, a stronger economy, higher employment, and opportunity for the many and not the few that will give us a healthier society, which is why I welcome the Government’s economic reform, with lower taxes for lower earners and deficit reduction. It is about not just pure utilitarianism, but social justice.

We must do more. We need more partnerships with grass-roots community groups, such as the local Harlow branch of the Alzheimer’s Society and the Harlow athletics club, which I have mentioned. Hospitals should be the first, not the last resort, which is part of the problem that we face in the NHS today. To do that, resources must be directed towards prevention, and the best people at prevention are the small community and faith groups already in our estates, working with people. When we open up NHS contracts, we must make it easier for small charities and firms to bid for them, as well as the larger, “Tesco” charities. There is fear in some parts of my constituency that our health reforms will be monopolised by vast health conglomerates. I very much hope that we see more co-operatives. I understand that the PCT in Kingston has become a co-operative. If that is the case, I hope that it will be a model that other PCTs and GP commissioning bodies can follow.

I have always said that the big society will only work if we build the little society, too. We must bring real localism to our NHS. We have to give patients meaningful choice. Harlow struggled for years with top-down cuts under the previous Government. For example, the North Essex trust, which, as has been mentioned, supplies mental health services, suffered a £5.3 million cut in 2007.

Finally, why is it that whenever the previous Labour Government cut our services in Harlow, it was presented as a fact of financial management, but whenever the coalition Government are forced to cut spending, it is seen as an ideological outrage? That double standard must be addressed. I am glad that our NHS budget is guaranteed to rise in real terms every year in this Parliament, and hope sincerely that Harlow patients and residents will get their fair share. I look forward to the Minister’s forthcoming visit to Harlow to see for herself the NHS in operation.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Before I call the final speaker, I remind hon. Members that the wind-ups normally start at 10 past 12.

National Blood Service

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Williams, for relieving me of my Chairman duties so punctually. It was a great relief to have a rest and a coffee before I opened this debate. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, because this is a subject that she will understand from her time in the national health service. I requested this debate on the future of the National Blood Service to highlight the intentions of the Government to sell off “elements” of the service to the private sector. I understand that there have been some preparatory discussions with a number of contractors. That was revealed in a report in the Health Service Journal. Three possible contractors are Capita, DHL and TNT.

In the paperwork relating to this debate, Members may notice that I have an “R” after my name. I spent 34 years in the national health service. Although I specialised as a medical scientist in microbiology in the NHS, I spent some of my former years in the National Blood Service, particularly in emergency transfusion services, so I have some experience of the subject.

The NHS staff who deliver that service are highly skilled and highly trained and it is essential that they are. I notice that a number of my colleagues are here, and I am quite happy for them to get involved in this debate. I will only spend about 10 minutes talking on the subject.

The annual review of the National Blood Service—and it is its own review—highlights the efforts that have gone into offering a world-class service to the NHS. It is probably the best blood service in the whole of the globe. Thanks to its unique clinical knowledge and experience and the support that it receives from its many dedicated donors and families, many people who need blood and organs can be saved. In its annual review, the organisation has spent some time evaluating its system and performance. In other words, it has looked at itself in great depth and that has allowed it to achieve substantial savings and to lower the cost of a unit of blood. According to its annual review, a unit of blood has dropped from £140 to £130 and it should reduce further to £125 this year, which will mean a saving of £30 million a year to the NHS. That money can be reinvested in NHS front-line patient care.

The National Blood Service administers not just units of blood, but organ donation, tissue donation and work on stem cells. There have also been improvements in the delivery of organ donation procedures, including training additional specialist nurses and increasing the numbers of people who are prepared to contribute organs. User hospital trusts pay for the blood products and services. It is important that both hon. Members and the public understand that blood and tissue donors give their services for free.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. May I ask him a question on the subject of reform? The National Blood Service is crying out for new donors. Should the fact that there is still an arbitrary ban on certain groups of society giving blood, such as gay men, be up for review or does he think that such a ban is okay?

[Jim Dobbin]

Everything should be up for review at the present time. I am quite sure that the National Blood Service is considering that matter as part of its review.

Donors give their services absolutely free to the national health service. The Department of Health funds the production of all the organisation’s services within its factories, processing centres and laboratories. The system has a record of sound financial control, of which the NHS should be proud. I was in the service when cleaning services were compulsorily tendered out to the private sector. If my memory is correct, that resulted in a reduction in the quality of service. We saw wards cleaned less frequently and an increase in hospital infections such as clostridium difficile, E. coli 0157 and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. We have all seen the publicity that such infections have received. Privatisation would introduce an element of cost cutting in order to increase profit. Shortcuts, reduced training and a reduction in quality are all strong possibilities.

The public who donate their services for free will be discouraged from taking part if the profit motive is introduced. The demand for blood from those who have serious health conditions will not diminish, but the supply of donors is in danger of being reduced.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As I understand it, the National Blood Service is allowed to use the blue flashing light to transport blood to the most serious cases. Is it not the case that if the service were privatised, the private sector companies would transport the blood but would not be able to use the blue-light service because it is restricted at the moment?

[Jim Dobbin]

If that were the case, it would make it much more dangerous for those patients who were waiting to receive that blood or organ. I would not like to see that happening.

The National Blood Service has created a strategy for each of its departments as it strives to improve its service and, looking at the review in great detail, in my view, it is succeeding. It is aware of the current economic situation and the constraints that it is working within over the next few years. It is planning more developments in future years. The question that has to be asked is why sell off something that is working so well. I understand that scientific staff have been angry about these moves. They have blasted the Government plan and demand changes to the Health and Social Care Bill, which will let private companies cash in on lucrative Government contracts.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the staff who currently work in the National Blood Service? Many of them opt to work in such services because they believe in the public good and in the common good. Does he share my concern about the impact that privatisation will have on them?

[Jim Dobbin]

Yes. That is exactly right. Those staff, who are well trained specialists in their area, are very concerned about the damage that this proposal would do to the blood transfusion system and they are very angry about what is possibly going to happen. Of course, they also fear that donors will walk away. There are 1.4 million volunteer donors at the moment. They donate about 200,000 units every year, which is a huge amount of blood, and all of it is donated voluntarily. Privatisation of the blood service has been tried in New Zealand and it drove down the number of blood donors. It deterred them from making that contribution freely, because donors do not like to see their organs or blood as part of a private sector business.

Why should the private sector profit from blood that is given freely? There is no private sector organisation that has the expertise to provide the range of services—blood supplies, tissue, organs and specialist products, plus the specialist research expertise—that are provided by the NHS blood transfusion service.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He raised an important issue when he said that there are a number of reasons why people give blood. Personally, I gave blood at the Galpharm stadium in Huddersfield a couple of years ago because I was inspired by Adrian Sudbury, the journalist from The Huddersfield Daily Examiner. Before he died, he also inspired people to sign up to the bone marrow register maintained by the Anthony Nolan Trust. So there is a lot of good work going on and the hon. Gentleman has identified that. I hope that the Minister, in her deliberations, will think about the other roles that the National Blood Service plays. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly identified that the service is not only about giving blood but about giving tissue and other material. I thank him for making that point.

[Jim Dobbin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. That was a very positive contribution, based on his own specific experience. There is a petition about this issue, there are now some 35,000 signatures on it, and it is building up all the time.

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

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a very important debate about an issue that is of great concern among the public. I wanted to ask him about the lessons from overseas countries where blood transfusion services have been privatised and where it is standard to pay for donated materials. What lessons can we learn from those countries about the safety of supply?

[Jim Dobbin]

I referred earlier to another privatisation that took place in the health service, when cleaning was put out to tender. Of course, the quality of the service was reduced. That is exactly what I fear will happen with the blood service, because if someone is in the business of making money and making profit they take short cuts. It is as simple as that.

The petition that I was talking about is building up. In addition, 300 people got in touch to say how much they valued the blood service. For many of those people, their loved ones personally benefited from the altruism of a fellow human being.

The blood service began before the national health service, around the time of world war two, when the demand for the service originated. So the blood service is older than the NHS.

I am very concerned. The Government are saying that only elements of the NHS blood transfusion service are under discussion at the present time but that is a dangerous route to go down. I hope that the Minister will take this issue back to the Government and the Secretary of State, and ask for a review of this particular service that the public so dearly love. The other thing that I will say is that if someone is looking for a big society in action, the blood service is it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

Having not served under your chairmanship before, Mr Williams, I now find myself doing so twice in a day. It is a pleasure.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) on securing the debate and I pay tribute to his experience of this sector. I also echo the tributes that he paid to the staff who are part of such a fantastic organisation and who are one of the reasons why it has such a high reputation.

The debate is an important opportunity to discuss an issue that is not only important to the NHS and the public but which has been the subject of very unhelpful rumour and speculation. I become very disappointed when I see scare stories in the press that are not necessarily based on any foundation and that will only result in scaring people off donating blood, tissue or organs. Those stories are not helpful. I urge the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members sitting beside him that if they want to clarify the situation they should please feel free to contact me. That is much better than running scare stories, or a story getting out of hand, so that the issue becomes a disservice to the public we are all trying to serve.

Contrary to what some people have been saying publicly and indeed privately, there are no plans to privatise the blood service, which is part of NHS Blood and Transplant, or NHSBT. I can say categorically that we are not selling off the service. If I do nothing else in this debate, I want to knock that rumour on its head.

The Government have said previously that we will retain a single national system for blood with NHSBT at its helm and we stand by that statement. Under its current management team, NHSBT has done a great job and it continues to do so. It has maintained—indeed, greatly improved—the stability and security of the blood supply. It has also improved productivity in blood processing and testing by more than 50% in three years, which is a true achievement.

[Jim Dobbin]

I have a letter from Andrew Pearce, who is the head of donor advocacy in the NHS. The second paragraph says:

“The review is at an early stage and is likely to take a few months. Although we cannot rule out that the review might eventually suggest that some of our supporting activities should be market-tested, this is by no means certain.”

There is some doubt in that letter, which is from someone within the blood system itself, about whether market-testing is going on with a view to something else happening. People do not test something for the market if they are not intending to put it out to tender.

[Anne Milton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. What matters is that people get good value for money from the taxes that they pay. What also matters is that we do things effectively and efficiently, so we constantly market-test within NHS provision. We should do so. What matters to us is having a quality service. However, we are not selling off the blood service and we are not privatising it. As for performance, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the performance of our blood service puts us in the top quartile compared with other European blood services. That is a fantastic achievement.

I reiterate the hon. Gentleman’s comments about what the improvements in the blood service mean. There has been a reduction in the price of a unit of blood, down by £15 from £140 in 2008-09 to £125 today. As he rightly pointed out, that reduction saves hospitals £30 million each year, which can be channelled straight back into patient care. Again, I pay tribute to the staff who have achieved that reduction.

It would be a huge oversight on my part if I did not also pay tribute to those who donate their blood for the benefit of others. I am pleased to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) has donated blood himself. Every year, 1.4 million people donate blood, which means that 2 million units a year are donated in total. That equates to 7,000 new units of blood every day, or about five a minute. Statistics are wonderful when one is engaged in a debate such as this one; they show the scale of the donations that are made. Those donations have saved countless lives and continue to do so. Indeed, the altruistic donor system is one of the rocks that the NHS is built on and we will not do anything to jeopardise public confidence in it.

It would also be remiss of me not to mention organ donation. The one thing that we do not do often enough is to thank people who donate their organs and those of their loved ones, saving many lives in the process. We have made great improvements in organ donation, which is up by 28% since 2008, but we must continue to make improvements. I do not want anything, anyone or any public statement to jeopardise any of that. On the contrary, we want to carry out a review to help NHS Blood and Transplant to improve its operational efficiency even further and provide an even better service.

The blood service must be seen in the context of its role in the NHS. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned courier services for getting blood around the place. We have been using courier services for many years—the previous Government did so as well—to deliver organs and tissue, and there is no question of putting the delivery of blood at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating that point. Blood is donated freely to the NHS to improve and save patients’ lives. Like any donation, it is a gift, and we want to maximise the opportunities for that gift. We do not want to do anything to discourage donors. I state categorically that the donor-facing aspects of blood donation are excluded from the review, which will ensure that the relationship between NHSBT and its donors is not compromised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) mentioned that people, in particular men who have had sex with men, are excluded from blood donation, and that issue is currently under consideration. I understand that there has been a lot of concern that the rules are outdated, and we will make an announcement on the issue at some point in the near future.

I feel that I have been repetitive, but I need to be to make the point, so I reiterate the Government’s support for, and belief in, a single national system for donated blood and organs, with NHSBT at its helm. That does not mean there is a blinkered belief that the system has already reached the peak of its potential; it would be remiss of the Government to think so. NHSBT, like all areas of public and private life, must continue to innovate and to challenge itself if it is to provide the best possible service. The current review is designed to explore how it can do that, to keep the price of blood—the cost to the NHS—as low as possible and to provide the high-quality blood service that donors and recipients deserve.

[Jim Dobbin]

I agree that we should continually look at research and at improving the system for the people of this country. I have no problem with that, except that I would like the service to remain within the NHS.

[Anne Milton]

In everything he does, the hon. Gentleman operates from a deep-seated belief in organisations such as the NHS, and he wants the best, not just for his constituents but for the people of this country. I therefore urge him, as I urge all Opposition Members, not to play politics with this issue, although I am sure that that is not his intention. If Opposition Members have any concerns, I urge them to discuss them with me; my door is open. It would be a tragedy if anyone did anything that reduced the number of donors coming forward. We are determined to ensure that that does not happen, but scare stories in the press can have that unintended consequence. We should not believe everything that we read in the newspapers.

Question put and agreed to.

Maternity Services

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

That is a very good question. The chief executive of the trust and the PCT and many others believe that there must be a reconfiguration and specialisation at both hospitals. The argument is that without it, we shall lose services, which will go out of the county. We shall not get our NHS trust foundation status and services will be moved out even further away. That is the gun being pointed at my head—not to rock the boat too much on this issue, because there is the possibility of services moving away. I understand that. I feel that the maternity services at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital are good. When my daughter was born there I found the services tremendous. Speaking emotionally, obviously I want them to stay in Shrewsbury. I understand that we must have the reconfiguration debate and that the professionals and clinicians must make the decision, and that is why I shall write to local GPs and consultants to gauge their views. I shall keep the Minister informed.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston on raising an important issue, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

May I speak?

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I was waiting for you to rise.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Dobbin. Clearly there are one or two procedures of the House that I am not yet wholly familiar with, and one of them is rising to speak in Westminster Hall. I will not forget that again, because I would have been quite miffed not to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am very grateful and shall always remember with fond memories my experience of speaking while you are in the Chair.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Make sure you put that in your memoirs.

[Glyn Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on the timely raising of a hugely important issue. She asked important questions. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response as, I am sure, are other hon. Members.

I can reassure the hon. Lady on one point, because my wife and I had four children—well, my wife had them—and they were all born at home. That was because of the added reassurance it gave my wife. Clearly, had there been any difficulties there would have been a transfer to hospital. The births were not at our home, but our in-laws’ home, which was very near the hospital—we wanted some reassurance.

The context in which I want to speak is cross-border services. It is relevant for several services, including maternity. My constituency is in Wales and health is a devolved issue. The commissioning of maternity services is clearly a matter for the Assembly Government, but because there is no district general hospital in my constituency or, indeed, anywhere in Powys, consultancy-led maternity service provision is in Shropshire. I therefore have a particular interest in the changes taking place over the border there.

The debate is timely because of the consultation document, “Keeping it in the County”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned. The local trusts are having to respond to pressure—not just financial pressure, although that is clearly an issue. There are two district general hospitals in Shropshire and the population is not really sufficient, given all the other considerations, to support them both. In addition there are the implications of the working time directive, and the specialisation that now exists among consultants. There is the added difficulty of accessing consultants from overseas, and there is greater expense in delivering specialist services at two hospitals. We have almost reached the stage of it being difficult to reassure everyone that services at these hospitals are clinically safe.

I support the principle of reconfiguration, the three most important aspects of which are consultant maternity and obstetric services, paediatric services, and trauma A and E. Those cover three highly contentious and emotional matters, and people have strong opinions on them. Today, I shall refer to consultancy-led maternity services.

My concern is that the proposals were prepared without sufficient consideration for mid-Wales. They were prepared in the context of Shropshire, and that is a huge problem. I was a member of the National Assembly for eight years. I accept that Wales is devolved, and I am most supportive of a strong and effective Assembly, but we do not want a barrier growing between Wales and England, rather like a Berlin wall along the line of Offa’s dyke. When it comes to specialist services, we remain dependent on England, particularly for consultancy-led maternity services.

The proposals suggest that consultant obstetric services will be moved from the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to the Princess Royal hospital in Telford. As my hon. Friend, the assiduous and hard-working Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, pointed out, that is causing huge concern—and not only in Shropshire but in mid-Wales. There will be three public meetings over the next three weeks. I expect hundreds to come along, and the main issue will be the provision of maternity services.

The Royal Shrewsbury hospital is just over the border from mid-Wales. All the traditional pathways from there have been to the Royal Shrewsbury. We are used to it, and it is relatively close. Nevertheless, mothers from many parts of my constituency have to travel for an hour to get to the Shrewsbury hospital, but if consultant obstetric services are moved from Shrewsbury to Telford, we are talking about another half an hour. That is causing massive concern.

I support the principle of reconfiguring the two hospitals in Shropshire. The general principle is that instead of having two district general hospitals struggling to survive in the current environment, we have one hospital that is in effect on two sites. That probably is sensible, and I would support it. However, I want the proposals to take account of the whole catchment area of the Shropshire hospitals. Devolution should not rule out mid-Wales from those discussions, as it depends on hospital services in Shropshire. That principle is particularly important to my constituency.

I shall express my view at the public meetings. I want the proposals to be changed. In a sense, it is selfish to argue the case for our constituencies, but we inevitably do so. I do not want services to be moved to Telford. If we were satisfied that that was the only answer, we would reluctantly accept it. As it is, all my constituents will rise up and say that they are not satisfied. They believe that the decision is based on convenience and political balance in order to attract support, and that this is not being done in the best interests of all who live in the catchment area of those hospitals.