Mental Health Care (Hampshire)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for securing the debate. Health matters are devolved in Northern Ireland and I do not have a direct input into them, but I do have compassion for those who are less well off and that is why I am here as an MP. I want to try to change lives for the better. I recognise the issues that affect the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He outlined clearly where the process works and where it has not worked, which is what we are debating today. As MPs, we look at the grand scheme of politics—we are all drawn to do that—but today I want to support the hon. Gentleman on the issue specific to his constituency and give an example from my area to illustrate the importance of acute mental bed provision.

As we all know, acute mental health bed provision is vital. Those who use it do so because they have to. The reason such provision is made is to ensure that they receive all the care they need in the best place for that care to be given. The hon. Gentleman outlined how and why the 56 acute mental health beds in his area were removed. That that should happen without full and open consultation with the MP who represents the area or with the many people who are affected greatly by the removal is nothing short of scandalous.

In my constituency, I am aware of the care that is needed for those with acute mental health problems. As you will know, Dr McCrea, the Bamford review raised awareness of mental health issues in Northern Ireland and the importance of having provision for them. It stated that nothing should happen until all the parts were in place, and that if something was to be removed there had to be something else there to take its place. The Bamford review was very important for Northern Ireland.

It has been suggested what the bed closures will mean. According to the background information, if someone is not in hospital, they will be at home. If so, has provision been made for them? The hon. Gentleman described how the system worked and how the consultation process did not involve everyone. Perhaps it did not look fully—it should have done—at how those at home, receiving care in the community, will be affected. Is that care of sufficient value and weight to fit the gap that has opened because of bed closures? I do not know whether it is or not, but back home, when there were changes, we also had to ensure that there was provision for care at home. That is important for those with acute mental health issues. I am not sure, from what I have heard so far, that that has been done in the case the hon. Gentleman has raised. I hope that the Minister can give us some idea of how that will work out.

The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) mentioned another problem. Sometimes, Members of Parliament think that they represent problems specific to their constituency, but they are not really, because all hon. Members represent people similarly and similar problems occur in Hampshire, Dorset, Scotland, Wales and in my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland. Last year, after changes were made, one of my constituents affected by mental health issues would have had to travel some 40 to 50 miles on a bus, because there was no car provision. To illustrate the point, we got on the bus and did the whole journey together, me and her, to the destination. There and back, the journey took seven hours and cost £39.40, not to mention the annoyance, hassle and problems that occurred. Whenever people talk about removing beds, they have to consider what happens outside that, including the effect on provision of care packages at home and on the families, and how they get from their home to the hospital whenever a person needs care. I am not sure that, when decisions are taken, people understand that families are also involved. It is not just about the person with the acute mental health problems, but about the families as well. When a stone is thrown into the water and it hits the centre, the ripples spread out: the centre is the person with the acute mental health needs, but the ripples spread out to the family, the community and everywhere else.

The hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned a petition with 1,000 names. I do not agree with Councillor Pat West, who commented that 1,000 names is only a small portion. A thousand names on a petition is a very great number and, I believe, represents a large part of the community.

[Dr Lewis]

For the sake of fairness, let me say that it was the chief executive of the NHS trust, Miss Percy, who sought to dismiss the petition in that way. The trust said that it had tried to validate it and said that a number of people professed not to know about having signed it. How big or small that number was, I have yet to discover.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The name stands corrected in Hansard for us all, including me. I still say that 1,000 names can never be ignored. Ignore them at your peril, because those 1,000 people have families and so on, and the numbers are important.

The loss of beds puts pressure on a great many people. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) spoke about the practicalities. It is important that we consider those, because before anything is done, people have to look at their effect further on. From what I have heard today, it is clear that this process has not been truthfully, honestly and fairly carried out.

To illustrate my point further and give examples, back home there has been pressure on mental health and acute mental health beds. I have pressed in this regard, as have other hon. Members—you have been involved as well, Dr McCrea, and the end result is a new 30-bed unit in Templepatrick, in your constituency. That is a £10 million to £15 million project undertaken in partnership with the health service, private enterprise and private monies as well. The unit is for acute mental health issues. I have become aware of some mental health issues over the years. People who have anorexia and bulimia have acute mental health issues to address; they feel that, no matter how thin they are, they are not thin enough. The 30-bed unit in your constituency, Dr McCrea, is there because of the vision of some of those in private enterprise, and individuals, who have worked with the Minister, Edwin Poots, to ensure provision.

I commend the hon. Member for New Forest East for bringing this matter to the House. Any closure or removal of mental health beds impacts not only on those who need them, but on families who have to live with their family members’ trauma and, wider afield, on the whole community, which also shoulders the burden. I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will be full and helpful. Again, I hope that we will get the answer that the hon. Member for New Forest East needs, confirming the retention of the beds, because that is the best way forward.

Cigarette Packaging

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for that intervention. The concern about jobs in the printing and packaging industry will be shared by many, particularly Members from Northern Ireland, who still have a fairly large tobacco-related industry in their constituencies. We can come to that in due course, but the fact is that none of us wants to stop the progressive reduction in smoking, and if it seems a reasonable presumption that reducing the attractiveness of the packaging will help, we must face up to the jobs implications. However, I hasten to add that, having considered the issue in the round, I do not think that the implications will be so severe, because after all, as I have pointed out already, we are not talking about “plain” packaging. The same inventiveness and printing of graphic images that have already been brought to bear will continue; indeed, they will be put to much better use than trying to encourage youngsters to try smoking because it seems attractive or because cigarettes are packaged as lipstick, or any of the other advertising gimmicks that have been used.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House this evening, as many people are concerned about it. Cancer Research UK has been working with its campaigning partners to explain why plain packs are needed and to rebut the myths circulated by the industry. Does he feel that plain packaging will reduce the number of deaths resulting from smoking? If it saves lives, the Government need to introduce plain packaging legislation as soon as possible.

[Mr Robinson]

The cancer campaign’s research to which the hon. Gentleman refers has come out strongly in favour of the proposal, as have Action on Smoking and Health and most other related parts of the health industry, in the public sector and the NHS in particular. They have all made the case that the proposal is plausible and that it should represent the next push in a campaign that has been effective but has now faltered. Since 2007, the figures have levelled out; there has been no further reduction in smoking. I think that that will come as a surprise to many people, and it makes the next step an important one. In my view, the next useful step would be plain packaging.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, given his past association as a constituency MP with this subject, because of the problems in his constituency. I believe that we have a strong system of general practice in this country, but I am afraid that more can be done to address variations in aspects of the quality of provision by some general practitioners. As I have said, the NHS Commissioning Board will adopt a single, consistent approach, allowing an overview of performance, which is not currently possible, and ensuring that interventions occur at an early stage. I think that will go a considerable way towards helping with the problems that have been experienced.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As an elected representative for a great many years, I have often been made aware of issues relating to GPs and patient lists. Does the Minister agree that there should be greater co-operation between the Health Department and GPs with regard to their patient lists, and specifically with regard to the transfer of patients?

[Mr Burns]

With regard to the transfer of patients, we are seeking to give greater choice to patients under the modernisation programme so that they can move from one GP, or one GP practice, to another in a way that they cannot do at the moment. That will help to enhance the power of patients to get the GP of their choice and preference.

Health and Social Care Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I want to make a few points on Lords amendment 2, which deals with the Secretary of State’s duties. This has been the subject of one of the most fundamental debates during the course of the Bill. The Lords still have grave concerns about whether the Secretary of State does indeed have a duty to

“provide or secure the effective provision”

of health services in England. In addition, concern remains over exactly what the Secretary of State will remain accountable to the House for.

In Committee, the Lords agreed not to amend clause 1, or clause 4, in regard to the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and the Health Secretary's accountability to Parliament. Instead, they preferred to engage in negotiations with the Minister with a view to bringing back proposals before the Report stage. The Lords Constitution Committee also proposed amendments on ministerial accountability for the NHS. The Committee’s concern was that, even after the months of debate here and in the other place and the amendments that had already been tabled, the Bill still posed an undue risk to maintaining adequate ministerial and legal accountability for the NHS. Given the number of amendments that had been tabled, it was a remarkable achievement still to have such uncertainty.

The wording of amendments remained an issue, and on 2 February 2012, the Government tabled 137 amendments to the Bill covering a range of areas, including changes to clarify the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the health service. There were two key amendments: one sought to ensure that the Secretary of State

“retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England”.

The other sought to place the duty to promote a comprehensive health service and to exercise functions to secure the provision of services above that of promoting autonomy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member used the term “comprehensive health service”. Does he feel that the changes to the NHS will deliver a comprehensive health service, or does he feel that what we will see is some people being able to access services while others are not? Is that not the sort of health care service that he would be against and to which the people of this country would object?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that this amendment, which deals with the Secretary of State’s powers, and, indeed, the whole thrust of the Bill, are likely to lead to a fragmented service, when what we all want to see is co-operation and integration. I am concerned about the direction of travel in that respect.

The point about autonomy is relevant, because Lords amendment 2 reiterates that

“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of”

health services. Lords amendments 4 and 17 would further amend clauses 4 and 20 in order to downgrade the duty to promote autonomy even more, through the idea that the Secretary of State must only

“have regard to the desirability of securing”

autonomy instead. When it comes to ministerial accountability for the Secretary of State, we have a yearly mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, which will remove the Secretary of State—and therefore Parliament—from being involved in or interfering in the running of the NHS. In that case, I ask the Minister: what would be the point of Health questions? As private health care interests take over the provision of health services, they will not be subjected to freedom of information requests or other forms of accountability to which NHS providers are subjected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

No, I am going to make some progress and then I will be more than happy to give way. [Interruption.] I am sure there will be more opportunities and I will give way in a moment.

On how Monitor exercises its powers, the Government have supported amendments made in the House of Lords, which were tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Williams, providing that the Secretary of State can give Monitor guidance to help ensure it exercises its functions in a manner consistent with the Secretary of State’s duty to promote a comprehensive health service. The amendments also help to ensure that the Secretary of State can discharge effectively his responsibility for the health service in England and to ensure that Monitor carries out its functions to that end. I therefore commend the amendments to the House. Both this House and the Lords have stressed the need for Monitor to use its powers to support integrated services and co-operation between providers. The Government therefore tabled amendments in the other place to provide express powers for Monitor to set and enforce licence conditions that would enable integration and co-operation between providers.

On the detail of Monitor’s specific regulatory powers, Monitor would have powers to intervene proactively to support commissioners in ensuring continued access to NHS services if a provider became unsustainable. Amendments tabled by the Labour peer Lord Warner, which we agreed in the other place, provide that Monitor will have to identify and publish evidence where it identifies risk that it considers arises from unsustainable service configurations. Those amendments would require commissioners to act on that information where necessary. Hence, they make clear the expectation that commissioners will address problems proactively and ensure that patients continue to have sustainable access to the services they need. These are sensible provisions that had support from all parts of the House of Lords and I hope that this House will also agree to them.

I want to say a bit more about the powers and responsibilities of Monitor, which relate to further amendments made in the other place. The extent of the various matters that Monitor would have to take into account was the subject of considerable debate in this House and the other place. I want to be absolutely clear about where we are regarding the overarching duty that Monitor has to take into account. Monitor will have a single, unequivocal duty—to protect and promote the interests of patients by promoting provision of NHS services that is economic, efficient and effective and that maintains or improves the quality of services. Beyond that overarching duty there is no hierarchy. No preference is given to competition or integration because integration is clearly a responsibility that sits with commissioners and Monitor’s role is to support it.

Peers also raised concerns about proposals for the Competition Commission to undertake seven-yearly reviews of competition in the provision of NHS services. The Government were sympathetic to the arguments and were concerned that it might be taken to suggest that competition was being given a higher status than the interests of patients. In order to avoid that, we accepted an amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones that removed the provision in the Bill for Competition Commission reviews. We also supported other amendments tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones requiring the Office of Fair Trading to seek advice from Monitor whenever it considers mergers or potential mergers involving foundation trusts. The amendments will help to ensure that benefits to patients are evaluated on an informed basis by a sector-specific regulator giving its expert advice to the OFT in the discharge of its responsibilities and as a paramount consideration.

[Jim Shannon]

Many hon. Members will probably have received correspondence from the Nuffield Trust saying that

“much of the behaviour of providers will in practice be shaped by detailed guidance and the work on pricing conducted by both Monitor and the NHS Commissioning Board. The two organisations have a major task ahead of them to ensure there is the necessary information, data exchange, contracting and payment tools to support patient choice, integrated care, efficiency and quality.”

How would the Minister respond to the Nuffield Trust on that question?

[Paul Burstow]

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

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

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

“to provide goods and services for the purposes”

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

I yield to no one in my admiration for my hon. Friend and her knowledge of the slightly occult religious practices of south Spain—and possibly of parts of St Helens for all I know.

But we did not expect the Spanish inquisition. We expected a valid, proper, sensible voice to enable the people to engage with their national health service. The NHS must not be an isolated ivory tower dominated by the old consultant gods who used to run it. It must not be a matter of non-responsible bureaucrats in quangos sending letters of suggestion. The NHS must contain a proper mechanism for the people’s voice to be heard and, above all, for the involvement of the wider community. The NHS cannot be a stand-alone organisation; it has to be involved with local councils and local communities, but everything in the proposals for this mealy-mouthed, milquetoast healthwatch nonsense dilutes and destroys that.

All the proposal does is create a false illusion—a falsity; the suggestion that somehow the voice of the people will be heard through this mere sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission, a committee whose mighty weapons arrayed against the forces of reaction and conservatism consist of the ability to write a letter. Such a letter would have to be vast, powerful and extremely effective, and would have to do what no letter has ever done in the history of epistolatory warfare. It would somehow have to persuade people on this gentle nudge—I appreciate that there are those on the Government Benches much given to the modern, modish philosophy of the nudge, but there is nudging and there is fudging, and what we have heard tonight is a fudge-nudge.

Above all, however, there is a crucially significant and important point here.

[Jim Shannon]

Do the hon. Gentleman’s exhortations mean that the pen is not mightier than the sword?

[Stephen Pound]

I am not entirely sure, Mr Speaker, whether you would allow the debate to go down that line, but were anyone in Northern Ireland to suggest a model such as that being proposed tonight, they would get a very dusty answer—it might not be replied to with sword or pen alone, but it would certainly be responded to.

The NHS is not something that we choose to buy into or out of. It is something that we all subscribe to. For many people—I should think everyone in this Chamber except me—it is a part of their birthright. People have been born under the NHS, have lived with the NHS, have funded the NHS and have supported it, and their voices must be heard. What we have tonight does not represent a valid mechanism for people to engage with the NHS. That is the key point. It is simply not good enough to set up a sub-committee of a quango and imagine that it has any force. We must realise that, yes, people may have different political opinions and there might be different priorities, but we do not have differential rates of national insurance. We pay national insurance because it is our national health service, and we have a right to have our voices heard.

Health and Social Care Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Sadly, Ruth Murphy’s experience is more and more common. By the end of last year, the number of people having to wait more than 18 weeks to get into hospital for the operation they needed was up 13% since the previous year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Like many in the House, the right hon. Gentleman will have received a lot of correspondence from professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and many, many others, and they all say that these changes will lead to an unsafe foundation for the NHS. Does he feel that they all want change, but the right change, and the right change is not what will be delivered by the Government here?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the great tragedies here is that the Government have squandered the good will and confidence of NHS staff that is necessary to make the changes to the NHS that it must make. This health Bill will make making those changes more difficult, not easier.

The Government could have built on the golden legacy and the great improvements that patients saw under 13 years of Labour investment and reform: hundreds of new hospitals and health centres; thousands more doctors, nurses and specialist staff; and millions of patients with the shortest ever waits for tests and treatments. Instead, we have a Tory-led Government, backed by its Lib Dem coalition partners, who have brought in the chaos of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history; wasted billions of pounds on new bureaucracy; and betrayed our NHS with a health Bill that will, in the long run, break up the NHS as a national health service and set it up as a full-blown market ruled, in time—for the first time—by the full force of competition law.

Everything about this NHS reorganisation has been rushed and reckless. This has been a master class in misjudged and mishandled reform—implementing before legislating, and legislating before being forced to call a pause to listen and consult on the plans already in hand. This health Bill was introduced last January. What was a very bad Bill is still a bad Bill. Make no mistake: this legislation will leave the NHS facing more complex bureaucracy and more confusion about who decides what and who accounts for what, and mired in more cuts and wasted costs for years to come.

Risk has been at the heart of the concern about these changes from the outset. There has been a lack of confidence and a lack of evidence, yet the Government are ready to manage the risks of introducing the biggest ever reorganisation in NHS history at the same time as the biggest financial squeeze since the 1950s. These risks were the reason for the growing alarm among the public, professionals and Parliament in the autumn of 2010, when I made my freedom of information request for the release of the transition risk register.

Last Friday the courts dismissed the Government’s efforts to keep secret the risks of their NHS reforms. Apocalyptic arguments were made in court, in defence of the Government, about how releasing the register would lead to the collapse of the Government’s system for managing risk. That did not happen when the Labour Government were forced to release the risk register for the third runway at Heathrow. Nor will it lead to the routine disclosure of Government risk registers, because the tribunal’s decision, like the Information Commissioner’s decision before it—both saw the transition risk register—was based on my argument that the scale and speed of these changes was unprecedented, and therefore that the public interest in their being disclosed was exceptional.

The Government have dragged out their refusal to release this information for 15 months. That is wrong. They have now lost in law twice. This is not a political argument but a legal and constitutional argument. It is about the public’s right to know the risk that the Government are running with our NHS, and about Parliament’s right to know, as we are asked to legislate for these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

Yes, thousands. I have had thousands of letters and e-mails from constituents—members of the public, as well as professionals—who oppose the Bill.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

I am sorry, but I will not be able to give way.

Those people are opposed to the Bill. They have been campaigning and have joined the 170,000 people who have signed up to oppose the Bill. They oppose it because they know that it will damage health care. This Bill will damage life chances; it will destroy the NHS.

In Tower Hamlets we had the first clinical commissioning group calling on the Government to drop the Bill, led by the respected Dr Sam Everington, who said:

“Your government has interpreted our commitment to our patients as support for the Bill. It is not.”

It is shameful that the Government carried on trying to use his name in support of the Bill. Those in the clinical commissioning group are concerned about the unnecessary bureaucracy that the changes will create and about the impact on patient care. They know that top-down reforms and restructuring will detract from their ability to care for their patients. That is what they have said. I hope that the Government will listen today, because in areas such as my constituency, where child poverty is higher than elsewhere—half the children in my constituency live in poverty—and where there is an inextricable link between poverty, health and life expectancy, it is vital that we have a health service that delivers for people on the ground. This Bill will not do that—Ministers know that, so they should do something about it. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working individuals who work in the national health service, and to Dr Éoin Clarke and Dr Clive Peedell, who have been supportive of the coalition, for highlighting the dangers of the Health and Social Care Bill. I suspect that this will be my final opportunity to speak up on the Bill. I understand that there are only about seven days before its Third Reading debate in the House of Lords. It terrifies me that the Bill, which I have studied intently during its 40 Committee sittings, is going to become law. The Secretary of State is introducing a new health system. It is a system that no one voted for, and it will be unrecognisable in comparison with the NHS that cared for an entire population from the cradle to the grave.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns of many Members on the Opposition Benches—and, I suspect, many people outside the House—that the Government will create a two-tier health system consisting of those who can afford to pay and those who cannot? Does not that fly in the face of what the NHS was originally set up to do?

Health and Social Care Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right, not least on his point that the coalition Government are investing in the NHS, with real-terms increases each year. That contrasts with the Labour Government in Wales, who in the course of this Parliament intend to reduce spending on the NHS by more than 6% in real terms.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

At a very lively Conservative away-day last Friday, a document was issued that stated:

“If we changed or altered the bill now, we would end up in a no man’s land, and chaos.”

Four days later, can the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s position?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government’s position is that there has been very constructive debate in Committee in the Lords, and I look forward to that being reflected in equally constructive debates on Report.

NHS Risk Register

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As a Northern Ireland MP, I will give a Northern Irish perspective. The need for the publication of the risk register is clear in my mind and in the minds of my constituents. My constituents tell me that they have concerns over the reform of the NHS and how it will affect them. It is therefore important for the risk register to be made public.

When one inquires into what a risk register entails, one is pointed to the guidance in the NHS paper, “Making it Happen: A Guide for Risk Managers on How to Populate a Risk Register”. A telling paragraph states:

“Managing risk effectively and embedding internal control into the processes by which objectives are pursued is extremely important for the NHS. The external driver in the form of a Statement on Internal Control, places a public disclosure obligation on individual boards of directors. That responsibility includes ensuring that the system of internal control is effective in managing risks. The production of a ‘live’ Risk Register is considered to be an integral element of good risk management practice by the Controls Assurance Team and NHS Litigation Authority and is a key feature of the Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standard. It is hoped that this document will help NHS organisations progress this agenda.”

What has changed in that need to ensure that good risk management practice is carried out by the NHS for the benefit of the organisation? Why is this risk register not being published so that front-line NHS workers can understand the risks and give their input?

I want to give an ordinary perspective on this matter. One of the major hospitals in Northern Ireland, the Ulster hospital, is on the border of my constituency. Its catchment area includes some 200,000 potential patients. It is a fantastic hospital with friendly and helpful staff, from the porters up to the consultants. I have been in contact with a large number of its staff who have concerns over this matter. They are clamouring for openness and transparency. People from my constituency work in that hospital every day in their various roles. They want to ensure that they are part of any decision-making process, because they know that their experience and expertise should be considered in any debate. They are not being given such an opportunity at this time.

I and many Members on the Opposition Benches—and, I suspect, some Government Members—believe that there must be transparency so that people know whether the savings are worth the risk. Our health service is a priority. For many people it literally means the difference between life and death. It is essential that those on the front-line of the service are aware in advance of what the changes could bring so that they can prepare for them.

I have been contacted by the British Medical Association and many other bodies that have asked me to speak on their behalf and on the behalf of doctors, midwives and staff in the NHS. The letter from the BMA, which I am sure all Members have received, bears repeating:

“Health professionals are already seeing fairly chaotic and complex implementation of the reforms ‘on the ground’ which has already begun within the NHS. The challenges and potential risks identified with this process should be contained within the register. Furthermore, the staff currently trying to balance the implementation of the reforms with the drive to find £20 billion of efficiency would benefit greatly from the Government’s view of the risks associated with this difficult twin challenge.”

That must be put on the record in this House, as it has been by many Members today, to bring clarity on this matter. The opinions of those who are working on the ground must at least be considered, but they cannot give a full opinion without possessing the full facts.

I am not someone who believes that every aspect of public service should be disclosed. Defence matters clearly should not be disclosed, because it would put the lives of soldiers at risk. As a Northern Ireland MP, I know that from the time of the troubles up to the present day, there have been security matters that cannot be disclosed and that should be kept secret. However, it is my opinion that the reverse could happen if we do not release the risk register. I believe that not releasing it could cause danger and harm. I therefore support the disclosure of the risk register.

The NHS, although far from perfect, is something that we can have pride in because of the dedication of those who work in our hospitals: the doctors who take on extra shifts to ensure that every patient has access to care, the nurses who stay for an extra 10 minutes or more to finish changing people’s dressings, the auxiliary workers who ensure that the elderly patients eat all of their dinner, the porters who transport patients slowly enough so that they are not hurt, and the cleaning staff who work later than necessary to ensure that the wards are clean. Those people are part of the NHS, have knowledge of the NHS and have an interest in the NHS. My constituents tell me that they want the publication of the NHS risk register. I urge Members to consider that very carefully. The publication of the risk register is a single issue. I ask Members to support it tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Training is certainly one of the issues highlighted by the audit. We are taking a number of steps. We are working with the Royal College of Nursing, which has developed an online dementia information resource; we have been working with Skills for Care and Skills for Health to provide a series of training workshops for staff; we have been working with Oxford Deanery to trial a new approach to dementia education and training for GPs; and we are funding another audit to make sure that we keep track of the improvements that we expect to see across the NHS.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What discussions has the Minister had with universities such as Queen’s university in Belfast with regard to new treatments and medication for those suffering from dementia, and when will those advances filter through to patients?

[Paul Burstow]

I have not had such conversations with the university to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, this Government, right from their first Budget, have indicated their commitment to prioritising research into dementia—both the basic research that gives us the targets for detailed research and the translational research. We have put in place all the building blocks that will allow this country not only to maintain its pre-eminence but to accelerate the pace of research.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate. I want to put on the record the appreciation of myself and the whole House for the work that she has done in this important area.

Last August, the Department of Health released the first ever England-wide analysis of patient access to radiotherapy treatment. For those of us who represent constituencies outside London and the south-east, the results were shocking. The disparity in treatment levels for cancer patients living in and around London, compared with the rest of the country, is nothing short of disgraceful. Access to advanced radiotherapy should not be a postcode lottery. The data on each of England’s 28 cancer networks show that the further someone moves away from London, the smaller their chance is of receiving radiotherapy. North-west London tops the list, with radiotherapy provision at 94%, whereas the north-east—my region—came last, at 27%. In fact, the bottom five networks were all north of the River Trent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The benefits of SBRT are well proven in many cases and clear in numerous cases. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be available more extensively across the whole of the NHS, and that it is time for the Minister to work alongside the devolved Administrations to ensure that the treatment is available for patients in Northern Ireland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree completely. All 28 cancer networks should have equal access to this advanced radiotherapy.

In practical terms, cancer patients in the Minister’s London constituency are three times more likely to receive the radiotherapy treatment that they need than those residing in northern England and twice as likely as those living in the south-west of England. Believe it or not, however, when the general radiotherapy dataset is analysed further—by that I mean looking at radiotherapy centres offering conventional radiotherapy and those offering the more effective SBRT—the picture is far worse.

The conventional method of radiotherapy delivery is unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy tissue, so the treatment is delivered in short doses—often every day for four or five weeks—to avoid too much damage to the healthy tissue. As the hon. Member for Wells said, SBRT uses small, multiple and highly focused beams of energy to deliver radiation directly to the tumour, ensuring that a minimal dose is received by the surrounding healthy tissue. Consequently, there are little or no treatment-related side effects. SBRT allows the patient to be treated over five days, as opposed to five weeks, as with conventional radiotherapy. Because of its accuracy, SBRT can be used to treat tumours that might be surgically inaccessible or in close proximity to critical organs of the body, such as the heart.

When we look at the postcode lottery that the dataset report presents, we should also ask where SBRT is available and where it is not. The Minister must understand how important the comparison is. For cancer patients in my constituency, the difference between having access to SBRT and having access to conventional radiotherapy—for prostate cancer, for example—is a 50-mile car journey every day for five weeks and the treatment lasting just five days, with a rapid return to normal life. As well as the benefits to the individual, the cost savings to the NHS of using SBRT compared with conventional radiotherapy are obvious for all to see.

Like the hon. Lady, I, too, was approached, just before Christmas, by a constituent whose cancer needed SBRT. His tumour could be treated only using the accuracy of the robotic CyberKnife system, but there are only three CyberKnife systems in the NHS, and they are all in London. However, thanks to the incredible co-operation of my constituents’ clinicians and the clinicians from St Bartholomew’s hospital in London, as well as the understanding of County Durham PCT—the commissioners, who, in a timely fashion, agreed funding —he starts his treatment here in London in two weeks. My constituent is very happy that he is set to receive the treatment in an NHS hospital, but is it not a scandal that he has to travel more than 260 miles to do so? What is equally scandalous is that the reason why there are only three CyberKnife systems in NHS hospitals is that those hospitals needed to raise the money to purchase them from charitable donations. I have since learned that in Birmingham, as well as in Newcastle, in my region, the Bear appeal is seeking to raise the money for a CyberKnife system from charitable sources.

What an indictment of the NHS under this coalition government! The NHS should not have to go begging for charitable funds to buy the latest life-saving equipment, especially when we know that the Department of Health is currently holding back £300 million in capital allocations, in Whitehall coffers. This resource is for capital equipment, but is not given to the hospitals in regions like the north-east where it is most needed. If the Minister is serious about reducing health inequalities in the north-east, and, indeed, in the south-west, we should have this equipment and not be left to linger at the bottom of the radiotherapy dataset, which the Minister himself said is the benchmark for future provision. I ask the Minister to make a commitment to investing some of this £300 million in the capital equipment needed to reduce these disparities in the provision of radiotherapy in general and SBRT in particular.

Haemophilia

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to serve under you today, Mr Weir, and I am pleased to have secured this debate on an issue that I know is of interest to a number of Members from all parties. I pay tribute to the Minister present, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who has taken a keen interest in this area, and with whom I have had a number of meetings. I am a little disappointed that the debate is a short one and that I can give only the headline figures. There are many issues to raise, but I will try to concentrate on just a few.

I pay tribute to my constituent, Glenn Wilkinson, and to his family, who first came to see me in 2010 to tell me their story, and to raise the scandal of how he and thousands of others had received contaminated blood products as part of their treatment as haemophiliacs. There are two main parts to what I want to say today: the first is on the ongoing treatment for haemophiliacs, and the second is on the care, support and treatment offered to people who have contracted viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C through NHS treatment for haemophilia. I also want to pay tribute to the work, over many years, of the Haemophilia Society, and of campaign groups such as TaintedBlood and the Manor House Group, and also to the work of the Newcastle initiative, which was born out of a multidisciplinary workshop on haemophilia care held in the city in autumn 2010.

Turning first to treatment, I want to concentrate on the need to ensure that the care and treatment of people affected by bleeding disorders is addressed in the NHS reforms that are currently before Parliament. The haemophilia community has been the subject of what Lord Winston described in his evidence to the Archer inquiry as the

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

There has been much progress in haemophilia treatment over the past decade, but it is now under threat, as is much else, from the Health and Social Care Bill, and I will go on to explain why. Standards of care vary considerably around the country, and there is the risk that the new commissioning arrangements for specialist services will result in a levelling down, rather than up, in haemophilia care.

Haemophilia services are currently commissioned by 10 regional specialist commissioning groups, with funds pooled from their constituent primary care trusts. The Department of Health has also injected extra funding for haemophilia care, which rose to £88 million per annum between 2003 and 2006, to finance the provision to all patients of recombinant rather than plasma-derived clotting factors. That money remains important to the quality of care, but has more recently been absorbed into PCTs’ baseline budgets, and I seek reassurance from the Minister that the money will still be available for haemophilia care post the NHS reforms. I understand that from April 2013 specialist services will become the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board rather than of the 10 specialist commissioning groups. That could mean that best practice is spread across England, but equally, there is the danger that under financial pressure standards will be levelled down.

I also want to raise with the Minister the question of where responsibility for haemophilia policy will sit. Because of the contaminated blood scandal, the Department of Health has taken a leading role in the development of that policy, and it is unclear whether after the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill that role will be maintained, or all responsibility will pass to the NHS Commissioning Board. It would help if the Minister could set out her understanding of where that responsibility will sit. Also, will the twice-yearly liaison meetings between the Department and the Haemophilia Society continue? Those meetings were established in direct response to the Archer inquiry’s recommendation that a statutory committee be established to advise the Government on clinical, financial and other provisions for people with haemophilia. There is also a call for a new national policy statement on haemophilia care to replace health service guidance (93) 30, which is now nearly 20 years old and no longer reflects best practice. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen at this stage?

Does the Minister agree with the need to support the development of robust haemophilia networks to combine the best of local care with access to tertiary expertise 24 hours a day? For example, in a recent survey by the Haemophilia Society, only 15% of respondents were aware of having been offered a care plan. In both the report of that survey, entitled “Fit for the Future: Haemophilia Services in the New NHS”, and in the Newcastle initiative’s paper, “Learning from the past to inform the future”, it was found that standards of treatment and care were generally high, which is very encouraging, but that access to the provision of associated services, including dentistry, physiotherapy and psychological support, required significant improvement. The reports also concluded that patients must be given a comprehensive care plan, that they must be able to access home treatment, and that they must be involved in all decisions about all their treatment. Those goals are partially but not consistently met under the current system, and we would, of course, like to see consistency across the whole country.

All Governments have said that lessons about treatment have been learnt from the contaminated blood scandal and that there is a need to maintain the highest standards of care so to avoid any repetition of it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. Is she concerned about the level of support given to haemophiliacs who have received blood contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C? Should an additional level of care and assistance be given to those who suffer through no fault of their own but because of the blood?

[Diana Johnson]

I will come on to deal with the financial support that is available to individuals who have had contaminated blood products and now have HIV or hepatitis C, because that is an important issue.

To finish this first section on the treatment of haemophilia, may I ask the Minister to confirm that there should be continued research, for example into sterilisation in areas with a high risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease contamination, in order to support the need to ensure that a contaminated blood scandal never happens again?

The second part of my speech relates to contaminated blood. In recent months, along with many other Members of Parliament, I have been raising the issue of care and support offered to victims of the NHS contaminated blood scandal, as it has come to be known over the past 30 years. My constituent Glenn Wilkinson has campaigned tirelessly for proper support for those who have received contaminated blood products as part of treatment for haemophilia or via other medical treatments, such as blood transfusion in childbirth.

This week, Glenn and other campaigners established the contaminated blood campaign. The treatment of people who contracted hepatitis C from NHS-administered blood products has been particularly unfair, and many of those people have, unfortunately, died already. The campaign set up by Glenn is also fighting for an independent public inquiry on the same lines as the report in Ireland and the Scottish Penrose inquiry, which I believe is due to conclude shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about trust and the need for us all to work together to ensure that those people do not suffer further, and that they get the compensation and support they are clearly due.

I want to concentrate on hepatitis C sufferers for a minute. I believe that they will be unfairly penalised by the Government’s plans in the Welfare Reform Bill. In a debate in October 2010, I asked the Minister whether it would be possible for people with hepatitis C and HIV to be passported on to the new system. The Haemophilia Society has also asked about people with fluctuating medical conditions, such as bleeding disorders, particularly those with viral infections from contaminated blood products. People suffering from fluctuating medical conditions such as haemophilia, HIV and hepatitis C tend to have good days and bad days.

The Haemophilia Society recommends that the work capability assessment be suspended for people with fluctuating conditions until Professor Harrington has considered the representations of the Disability Benefits Consortium. Many people living with hepatitis C in particular have been placed in the work-related activity group of the new employment and support allowance, rather than in the support group, where benefits will continue indefinitely. That has two consequences: it means that sufferers will have to have annual assessments, and that, after 12 months, their benefits will become means-tested. That is effectively penalising people for prudent behaviour and hard work while they were well enough to be employed.

People diagnosed with hepatitis C know that they are unlikely to be able to continue working until normal retirement age. Furthermore, people must currently wait up to 11 months for a tribunal appeal. It is to be noted that appeals for hepatitis C sufferers have a particularly high success rate. Automatically moving contaminated blood product victims into the support group would save patients stress and the Government money.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way. Many haemophiliacs have suffered from poverty and discrimination because of contaminated blood. Does she not feel for that reason that the Government must urgently address those still suffering from such maladies?