NHS Commissioning Board (Mandate)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

The outcome that we want is for more patients to live longer and more healthily than ever before. The right thing for me to specify in the mandate is that we want the NHS to deliver improved patient outcomes. Sometimes that will involve using the independent sector and the voluntary sector, but in the vast majority of cases it will mean working within the traditional NHS. If we deliver those improved outcomes, we will be doing the right thing by patients throughout the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Minister, may I thank you for your statement on the mandate and in particular your reference to the armed forces covenant? Mental health has been the poor relation for too long. The statement says that mental health will be elevated to parity with physical health. Can the Minister explain how those who have fought in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular and who have seen the awfulness and the brutality of war will be helped through the mandate?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I always listen extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who has asked a very serious question. I hope he will take it in the right spirit if I say that my medium-term ambition is to persuade him to cease to use the word “you” in asking questions in the House. But his question has been heard and it will now be answered.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), although I am concerned about his claim that regional pay is being introduced by the back door. The Government have made no change to the legislation, so I suspect that the change taking place is a result of policies and Bills passed by the previous Administration.

I speak in this debate as a Welsh MP—perhaps my red plaster cast gives that away, although I stress that I have it because the plaster technician at my local hospital wanted to give a Conservative MP a red cast in which to go to the House of Commons and make an impression.

I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who stated that he was responsible for the national health service in England. I accept that devolution has changed and complicated the situation, but when my constituents in north Wales think of the national health service, they do not think about what happens in Wales and what happens in England, because that is not how it works. The health service in north Wales is regularly dependent on specialist services offered in north-west England, and when we think of the health service, we think of it as one body.

There is no doubt, however, that the differences between what is happening in England and in Wales should be taken into account. It is all well and good to carp that figures suggest that spending on the health service in England is more or less flat in real terms—that was the claim made by the right hon. Member for Leigh—but that should be contrasted with actual and significant cash cuts to the health service in Wales that are being implemented by the Labour Administration as a choice. Those cash cuts would have been implemented in England too if the right hon. Gentleman and his party had won the last election.

When trying to ensure best value for money within the NHS, it is crucial to take into account that the health service in England is facing real challenges while maintaining a position that takes inflation into account. In Wales, however, the hospital staff who serve me, my family and my constituents are facing significant cuts as a result of decisions by the Welsh Assembly Government. That is the context and it is important to make that point.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) made the important point that public sector workers have recently been facing difficult situations due to a pay freeze and increases in pension contributions. Those two provisions, however, were implemented in an equitable manner throughout the United Kingdom. People may disagree with the changes to pension contributions in the public sector, but there is no doubt that workers in Wales, Northern Ireland and south-east England have been treated in the same way. People might complain about the freezing of public sector pay, but that too has been done in an equitable manner throughout the United Kingdom.

There is real concern in constituencies such as mine that a change to regional pay—which is not being implemented by the coalition Government, merely consulted on—would be inequitable. Somebody in my constituency would be paid at a different rate from someone doing exactly the same job 40 miles down the road in Chester, for example. That is the difference between the pay freezes in the public sector and the pensions changes—those were difficult choices but were implemented in an equitable manner throughout the United Kingdom—and moving forward with regional pay, which would be damaging.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate this opportunity to make a quick intervention. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the four regions of the United Kingdom have parity and equity. Will he explain what will happen when it comes to retrospective payments? In Northern Ireland, a number of retrospective payments have had to be made. Are the same retrospective payments applicable in Wales as in Northern Ireland, for those who have been upgraded and should therefore get more money?

[Guto Bebb]

I am not sure whether I am qualified to answer that question in detail, but perhaps the Minister will respond from the Dispatch Box in due course.

The changes in the south-west are taking place under current legislation and without any changes to the law, and we must be careful. We are proud to have a national health service and national public services that we take seriously. Although sacrifices are asked of people in the public sector, it is important that they are requested on the basis of equality throughout the United Kingdom. Ultimately, I am concerned that we are discussing a Labour motion that contradicts a lot of what has happened over the past few years.

I recently took part in a television debate on regional pay in Wales with a Labour Member who said that the changes to HM Courts Service pay rates were not about regional pay but about zonal pay. As it happens, zonal pay in Wales is lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that workers in Wales were cheered that they were subject not to regional pay in that context, but zonal pay, which made it all right.

There is a degree of opportunism from the Opposition Benches in initiating this debate at this time, and there is no recognition that many of the issues that have given rise to concern are a direct result of policy changes that the Labour party implemented when in power. I accept, however, the need to ensure we get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer from public services, and it is important to look at the degree to which we can be flexible in the way we deliver public services, whether in England or Wales. My view is that a person should not be discriminated against in pay if they are doing a similar job in the same manner as someone within 40 miles of them. The Government should take that extremely seriously.

The economic argument for regional pay is difficult to make by a party that claims to believe in the Union. One advantage that a rural, low-pay area such as mine derives from the relationship with the UK is the transfer of money from richer to poorer parts of the country. We could argue for a stronger regional policy and that we need to do more in that respect, but it would be difficult for me, as someone who believes that the Union brings a great deal of benefit, to argue that workers in my part of the world should be given a different degree of support from the state from workers doing exactly the same job in other parts of the country.

I find it difficult to disagree significantly with the motion, but I welcome the Government amendment. The one thing we can say about the coalition Government is that they are willing to throw difficult, controversial matters out into the open—that often creates problems for MPs because we need to sell those policies on the doorstep. I feel comfortable with the amendment. Ultimately, when Members are elected, they have a responsibility to look into issues carefully, to read around them and take on board the evidence. The amendment states:

“there will be no change unless there is strong evidence and a rational case for proceeding”.

I can live with that—it is great deal better than the Labour motion. Labour Members are basically hiding behind a discussion in the coalition. The fact is that the changes are happening as a result of legislation they proposed and voted for, and now regret.

Polycystic Kidneys

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. This is a little-known condition, and the horrific nature and impediments caused by the condition as it progresses are little known and little appreciated. Often, people can look quite normal but be suffering tremendously. I commend her work in trying to raise awareness.

For individuals with ADPKD, it is a truly disabling, painful and limiting condition. Kidneys become enlarged, leaving patients disfigured and appearing prematurely pregnant. The kidneys continue to function normally, but eating, sleeping and even breathing can be difficult because of the size of the kidney and the pain experienced. The liver can be affected, too, and many patients are often diagnosed with PKD and liver disease. Besides the effects on the kidneys and the liver, there is a range of other complications: heart disease, bowel problems, hernias, infections and a high risk of intracranial aneurysms.

The kidneys can weigh up to 17 lb—upwards of 10% of a person’s body weight—and in one case a patient was recorded as having kidneys weighing 48 lb. An affected liver can grow more quickly than the kidneys, effectively squashing them. PKD affects people of working age and is characterised by premature mortality. Tragically, end-stage kidney failure is common at an average age of 55—within working age, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned.

PKD affects an estimated 12.5 million people around the world and is the fourth most common cause of kidney failure. It is more common than sickle-cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, autonomic dystrophy and Down’s syndrome combined. We simply do not know how many people are affected by PKD in the UK. On the one hand is the answer to my parliamentary question in July. The Department of Health said that a total of 1,100 hospital admissions in 2010-11 were identified as resulting from PKD, although I was informed that that might include repeat visits by the same individuals. On the other hand, PKD Charity’s own figures suggest that the number is far higher. On the basis of the number of people requiring a kidney transplant and dialysis as a result of PKD, it estimates that as many as 60,000 to 70,000 people could have the condition in the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. My nephew, Peter Shannon, was born with posterior urethral valves, which meant a kidney transplant for him. Had he not had one, he would be dead. Does she agree that we need a bigger push to get people to sign on to the organ transplant donor list in the interest of those with kidney diseases, and those with PKD specifically, who are currently being kept alive by dialysis treatment? Transplants are important. If Members have not signed up, they should do so and encourage others in their constituency to do the same.

[Mrs Moon]

I completely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is imperative that kidneys be available for these transplant patients. It is the most generous commitment that anyone can make.

I am particularly grateful to Sandra Buckland and her husband for allowing me to quote directly from her remarks at the kidney group meeting. She bravely shared with us her experience of PKD, and I would like to share them with the House. Sandra’s powerful remarks underscore many of the points I want to make about what needs to be put in place to tackle this condition. Sandra was particularly brave in doing so, because she had also recently lost her sister, who died from PKD. She said:

“I suffer from polycystic kidney and liver disease. I am married with two sons, both with polycystic kidney disease and the youngest with polycystic kidney and liver disease. My elder son has an eight-year-old daughter with PKD and my younger son, a four-year-old son with both polycystic kidney and liver disease. My father died at age 39 with heart failure due to side effects of PKD.”

She left the group with the following question:

“Why, when I lost my own father at 17 to this dreadful disease, are lives still being lost and progress appears to be at a standstill? If more successful research could be performed, halting the genes that allow PKD to continue, it would remove the stress, heartache and trauma for many families.”

Sandra Buckland clearly demonstrates the cost of PKD to an individual and her family. It is a long-term, devastating diagnosis. At a national level the costs to the NHS are unknown, although an estimate is possible. The PKD charity believes the annual cost is £330 million. As I said in my opening remarks, PKD is currently incurable and can be managed only with dialysis and transplants, combined with monitoring, all of which are expensive. It was only in 1994 and 1996 that the two ADPKD genes were discovered. The ARPKD gene was characterised only in 2002.

Funding for research is limited. In the US, $360 million has been invested in research over the past 15 years —$45 million in 2009 alone. The House will be shocked to learn that the total investment in research in the UK and the European Union is zero. The PKD charity recently funded a small biobank of PKD kidney cells at the UCL-Royal Free, and together with the US PKD foundation, it has funded one small laboratory study in Sheffield. This funding is all reliant on donations. It is telling that in the past 12 years there has been no improvement in the life expectancy or average age of renal replacement therapy of 55 years for someone diagnosed with ADPKD.

It cannot be acceptable for PKD to remain a neglected condition in terms of research and the development of treatments. Transplants and dialysis are costly. Developing treatments would not only improve the quality of life for patients, but reduce the cost to the NHS. The PKD charity has recently begun work with the UK renal registry to develop an analysis of PKD patients on renal replacement therapy. Would the Minister consider supporting the extension of this work to include pre-dialysis patients by asking the Renal Association to develop quality standards relating to ADPKD? Would she also support changes to governance requirements that would enable the UK renal registry to collect the data, and provide the necessary funding of £500,000 for the analysis and publication of these data?

I appreciate that £500,000 may appear a large sum, but compared with the long-term savings, it is a small investment for a huge return. Funding the registry would overcome a major barrier to understanding ADPKD, support care planning and counselling, and provide cohorts for clinical studies. The information is not available at present, so there is no foundation in place on which to build a meaningful research programme.

New drug treatments are being developed, but getting access to them is not without its challenges. One PKD patient with polycystic liver disease contacted me to describe how she self-funded her involvement in a drugs trial in Italy over three years, travelling back and forth to Italy monthly for three years at her own cost. During the trial, her symptoms improved considerably. The trial has finished and her condition is rapidly deteriorating. Her local PCT refused to fund ongoing treatment. Her long-term survival is being determined by finances.

Last December the Prime Minister announced a package of support for the life science sector, which included an early access scheme for seriously ill patients with limited treatment options to receive promising new drugs in clinical trials. This accurately describes PKD patients. Will the Minister take steps to ensure, as a matter of priority, that PKD patients are included in access to drugs in clinical trials?

Last weekend a drugs trial in the Netherlands reported positive results in altering the progression of ADPKD. The drug will now be presented to the European Medicines Agency for licensing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. I was horrified to discover in a recent meeting that unfortunately in England we are not making the progress on organ donation that we should. It is a serious problem. We know that so many lives can be saved or seriously improved if people are good enough to indicate that they are willing, on their death, for their organs to be donated.

Let me go further and say this: of course I understand why, when somebody dies, the family struggle in their bereavement to give permission to allow the loved one’s organs to be donated. However, I urge people to do so, even in those very difficult situations. It is a most wonderful way to create a real legacy by enabling somebody literally to live on through someone else. If more people could, in those dark moments, see that, it would make a profound difference to improving, and indeed prolonging, lives.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her pertinent words about transplants. I understand that when people renew their driving licence there is a box they can tick if they want to be on a donor register for the rest of their life. It is a painless exercise that commits them for ever and provides the authority for all their bodily items to be transplanted. Given that it is so easy to tick that box, perhaps more of those who are renewing their licence should do so to say, “Yes, I want to be a donor.”

[Anna Soubry]

The ability to do that is a golden opportunity for people, and I wish they would take it. One of the problems, though, is that someone applying for a licence will think, “Well, I’m applying for a driving licence and I can’t deal with all that now; I’ll come back to it another day”, and unfortunately they do not return to it having got their driving licence.

I would very much welcome a serious look at how we can solve this problem by campaigning harder to ask people to tick the box, make their views known, and speak to their families. Each and every one of us should talk among our families about the things that we want on our death. I know that these are difficult subjects, but this is, as we all know, a wonderful legacy that people can leave which makes a huge difference to the quality and length of the lives that people could lead.

As provision could be improved with the introduction of evidence-based best practice guidance both at diagnosis and for the management of people with polycystic kidney disease, I will ask my officials to raise this with the appropriate agencies to see what further actions can be taken.

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed to this debate, and thank them for drawing attention to this specific and important disease area. I also congratulate those at PKD Charity on all their hard work. I look forward to meeting them and the hon. Lady to make sure that we raise the profile of polycystic kidney disease.

Question put and agreed to.

Nursery Milk Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I want to start by saying how important the nursery milk scheme is. All children under five years old in a day-care or early years setting for two or more hours a day are eligible to receive a free daily drink of milk. Milk is full of important nutrients for children. Their free third of a pint portion contains calcium for strong bones and teeth, protein for growth and development, vitamins such as B2, B6, B12 and folate, and the minerals iodine, phosphorus, potassium and zinc.

The Education Act 1944 provided free milk—a third of a pint a day—in schools to all children under the age of 18. I have some personal recollections from the 1950s of the milk in one-third pint bottles left in the sun all day and served in such a way that I am still not very good about drinking my milk, which may be why my bones are a bit fragile. In 1968 Harold Wilson’s Labour Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools, and of course it is well known that in 1971 Margaret Thatcher withdrew free school milk from children over seven.

I saw first-hand the benefits of free school milk for under-fives on my visit to Hayeswood first school in Colehill in my constituency on world school milk day. It was interesting to go to a school, because we have to appreciate that now that children are starting school when they are four, they are accessing the milk at school. I was impressed with the numbers and the uptake at that school, and also with the fact that, through the particular scheme that was operating, older children could have the milk purchased for them at £15 per term.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

World school milk day came to my area too. Castle Garden primary school participated and more than 100 young children were present. The important aspect of that visit was that young children who had not taken milk regularly said that they were encouraged by those who were there to participate in taking milk rather than fizzy drinks. Did the same thing happen in the school that the hon. Lady visited?

[Annette Brooke]

Absolutely. Indeed, I was talking to one of my local nurseries—a nursery that is registered for milk. The owner of the nursery had discussed with parents whether they wanted the milk or not. Parents had voiced concerns about participating because their children would not drink milk at home, but they said, “Well, we’ll give it a try,” and to their surprise, every child in the nursery drinks their milk in the group setting.

However, in the past few years the costs of the scheme have been rising. In 2007-08 it cost the Government £27 million, but by 2010-11 the amount had risen to £53 million. Increased costs could be due to greater uptake, growth in the number of under-fives in day care settings or increases in the price of milk. The Department of Health has predicted that costs could rise as high as £76 million by 2016 and so recently set up “Next Steps for Nursery Milk”, a consultation to review the current system and consult on how to make efficiencies.

A significant number of day-care providers are effectively paying over 90p a pint for school milk. I know that we must ensure that the scheme can operate as efficiently as possible while ensuring the greatest access for entitled children. There is clearly also a need to add as little as possible to the burden of bureaucracy on child-care providers and schools. I want to take this opportunity to say how pleased I am that the Department has stated its commitment to this universal benefit for under-fives and that it is fully committed to keeping it as such. The options offered in the consultation are: to leave the scheme as it is; to cap the price that can be claimed for milk; to issue e-voucher cards with economy incentives; or for day-care providers and schools to arrange the direct supply of milk themselves.

There are a number of important aspects to consider when thinking about changing the current scheme. First, it is important that as many eligible children as possible receive their allocation of milk. The Department’s own figures show that roughly 40% of the total number of under-fives currently receive milk at their day-care setting. Whatever system is put in place must be easy to use for day-care providers so that as many as possible take part in the scheme. Given the percentage of children who currently do not receive milk, I ask the Minister to look at how the Government can increase the number of children receiving the milk to which they are entitled. I appreciate that that might be counter to the idea of reducing the costs of the scheme, but I was personally rather disturbed that perhaps only 40% of eligible children access the milk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The debate so far has been about the price of a pint of milk. My recollection, like that of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), is of a third of a pint of milk. If we reduce the quantity of milk for a small child, would that not reduce the price? Is that too simplistic?

[Dr Poulter]

We will see what the consultation says. One option, which I have outlined, takes into account the bureaucratic burden of the cost on schools. We value the scheme and want to keep it—that is implicit—but at the same time, we recognise that going through a bureaucratic process to claim for milk could increase the cost to nurseries and other child care settings. The third option in the consultation is therefore for direct procurement from the Department of Health. That would help to reduce the bureaucracy in the scheme, although the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an allied, parallel scheme in Northern Ireland that operates in a similar way to the schemes in England, Scotland and Wales.

The National Farmers Union values the nursery milk scheme as a well established and highly regarded programme that plays an intrinsic role in society, supporting our dairy farmers as a key part of the supply chain. At the same time, the NFU believes that every attempt must be made to ensure a fair return to the whole dairy supply chain, including the primary dairy farmer. We must not lose sight of that. When the intermediaries are making huge profits, the farm-gate price—the price paid to farmers, who we value, particularly in rural communities—must be recognised in how the scheme operates. For the NFU and all those concerned about the impact of the proposed changes on the dairy market, let me explain that, according to Dairy UK estimates, milk supplied under the nursery milk scheme represents less than 1% of the total value of the UK dairy market; nevertheless, it is an important part of that market.

We are consulting on the scheme. The consultation closed at the end of last month, and we will be considering the representations made. To conclude, I repeat that the nursery milk scheme will continue as a universal benefit. It has huge health benefits for young children, and all eligible children in the care of child-care providers will continue to receive their free milk. We need to establish a system, however, that makes the nursery milk scheme fit for purpose and makes it adapt to recognise the important role that farmers play in the supply of milk—

Induced Abortion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing the debate. I am pleased to speak in this debate, and my position will become very clear. I believe in human rights. I believe in the most basic of human rights, the right to life, so I am against abortion. I believe that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and the vulnerable. It is that protection that I seek to uphold, and that is why I am here to speak on this matter.

I begin by stating clearly that I am against abortion, except in the extreme case in which it is done to save the life of the mother. Statistics show that Northern Ireland, which has a restrictive abortion law, has the lowest maternal death rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is backed up by the fact that the Republic of Ireland has almost the lowest maternal death rate in Europe, and has no legislation that allows abortion. The UK mainland, with its more liberal abortion law, has a higher rate of maternal deaths. That speaks volumes, and it is clear that restricted abortion to save the mother’s life, which we have in Northern Ireland, works well to save both mother and child.

If there was the option of bringing in Northern Ireland’s abortion laws, I would be pleading with everyone in this House to do just that. I have been contacted by the Christian Medical Fellowship, which states things clearly. Today’s debate is calling for a small reduction in the upper time limit for legal abortions. That will affect approximately 2,000 abortions that are carried out for social reasons—I use the phrase “social reasons”, because that is why they are happening—out of a total of nearly 200,000 abortions per year. It will not prevent the abortion of babies with foetal abnormality up to term.

This issue is emotive. A large number of people have contacted me and asked me to watch the scans of a 20-week-old baby to remind me of the humanity behind our decisions. When I look at a baby at 20 weeks’ gestation sucking its thumb, having the hiccups, crying and blinking, it is beyond me how anyone in good conscience, in this House or outside, could say that it is fine to rip away life at this stage. It is not fine. It is never going to be fine. A 2008 study by University college London found that survival rates were more than 70% for babies born between 22 and 25 weeks when high-quality care was available.

[Kate Green]

It is really important that we are accurate about these figures. At 24 and 25 weeks, survival rates improve a lot, but at 20 to 24 weeks, survival rates are very low: zero at 20 weeks; 1% at 22 weeks; and 11% at 23 weeks. It is wrong to imply that at under 24 weeks, we have survival rates of 75%.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but life is life as far as I am concerned; that is where I am coming from.

The survival of more than 70% of babies born between 22 and 25 weeks when high-quality care is available blows away the argument that a baby can be aborted until it is viable at 24 weeks. Recently, in America, a baby of 21 weeks responded to stimulus, crying and smiling, so there is evidence that shows clearly that it can happen. All the things that we associate with life are in evidence before the time of so-called viability.

I will give the example of a young girl from my constituency. A friend of mine had a grandchild who, they were warned, would not survive as she was so premature. The family prayed hard, and asked for all possible treatment to sustain the baby’s life. Today, Zoe-Lee is 13 years of age and is the light of her parents’ life. It is scary to think that if an abortion had been allowed at that time, that young girl would not be here today.

The question that has been posed to me by members of the medical fraternity is: how much longer can we justify doctors desperately—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to this as well—trying to save premature babies born at 23 weeks, while down the corridor in the same hospital, another doctor is aborting a 23-week baby, which is perfectly healthy, for social reasons?

A 24-week upper limit in the UK is outdated and out of line with other EU countries. In 2008, our 24-week upper limit was double the 12-week limit for most EU countries. Some 16 out of 27 other European countries had a gestational limit of 12 weeks or less, so if we want to be in line with other countries that have high standards, then let us do that.

Ask any woman who has miscarried a baby in early term—at, say, at 12 weeks—and she will tell you that she saw its perfectly formed fingers and toes, its spine and head, and that wee face. For me, it is almost unimaginable to take it from the womb at this stage, never mind any later, and to ask any general practitioner to do this is grossly unfair. I am no man’s judge, and I feel for those women who have felt that they had no other option than to take this step.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree—he seems to be coming to this point—that we need to try to develop a caring, compassionate approach to women who find themselves in the circumstances that he is outlining, but feel that there is no alternative to an abortion? We need to offer them another viable alternative.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is exactly the point I was coming to. For the reason I mentioned, I supported the calls by my colleague, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, to have better counselling in place for women considering abortion. Will the Minister update hon. Members on when new counselling will come into play, and on what has been done thus far?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Would he not agree that, given all the arguments he has given, perhaps 20 weeks is still too high, and that it should be 12 weeks or lower?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I agree. Ask the women who have had abortions and live with the guilt and despair every day of their lives, and who try for children and are faced with more difficulties than those who have not had abortions. Abortion should not be the choice for social reasons; it should be a last resort for medical reasons. Although I cannot today change the law in England and Wales, I speak for those babies who feel the pain of being ripped from their mother’s womb. This must stop today. This House should deal with this matter and make it clear that late-term abortions are unacceptable, apart from in limited and specialised cases. We must make it clear that we will not allow hon. Members in this House, and people outside it, to weave a web of inaccuracies that would make wrong seem right, make lies seem to be truth and seek to justify that which is unjustifiable.

Stillbirth Certification

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Owen. I hope that you will be as gentle with me as are the other Chairmen whom I have served under in Westminster Hall. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to talk about stillbirth certification.

On 18 May 2011, I led a Westminster Hall debate on the sensitive and emotive subject of stillbirth. I explained back then that I had wanted to raise the subject ever since a couple of my best friends had a stillborn child. The way in which they and other parents of stillborn children are treated is simply not good enough for a modern developed country.

Seventeen babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth every single day in the United Kingdom, and the stillbirth rate has not changed in a decade. That number is way too high. I have been told that approximately 30% of stillbirths remain completely unexplained and that lots of different factors play into the deaths of the remaining 70%. I know that the Minister who will reply to the debate is concerned that the UK is slipping down the league table of developed nations in this regard. According to a study published last year in The Lancet, the UK has one of the worst records for stillbirths, ranking 33rd out of 35 high-income nations. Although it is important to acknowledge that all women are vulnerable, we need to work out why women in our nation may be at a higher risk of stillbirth and what we can do to change that fact.

There are some troubling regional differences in the percentage rates of stillbirth across the United Kingdom. How can we explain the 33% difference between the incidence of stillbirth in the south-west, which has the lowest rates, and the east midlands, of which my constituency is a part, which has the highest?

I have had discussions with people who point out that in recent years, Britain has become one of the unhealthiest nations in Europe. We are the most obese nation in Europe and we have the heaviest drinkers. As life expectancy has increased, more British women are also waiting until later in life to become first-time mothers. All those could be contributing factors to the horrid statistic that I read out earlier.

I could not let this occasion go by without asking the Minister what research is being done into the reasons behind our high stillbirth rate. Why is there so much regional variation? More than anything, I want the Minister to assure me and those in the Chamber that the Government have an ongoing commitment to reduce the number of stillborn children throughout the United Kingdom, to talk about this subject more and to spread best practice. What will the Minister do to ensure the spread of best practice? There are many hospitals across the United Kingdom that have fantastic practice in this area, but, equally, there are those where best practice is desperately needed. Eventually, I hope that fewer parents will suffer this terrible fate. I was personally delighted by the announcement by the Department of Health, on 16 May, of the Government’s maternity pledges, which include the pledge to provide more NHS support to women who have suffered a stillbirth.

I do not intend to go over much of the territory that we covered in the debate last year, but wish instead to concentrate on one particular area—the certification of stillborn children. Without a doubt the passing of the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992 was a breakthrough and had huge significance for parents. From the passing of that Act, a baby who was born dead at or after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy was recognised in law as an individual. It required that the baby’s death be registered in person by one or both parents at a register office within six weeks of the baby’s birth and it stated that a stillbirth certificate be issued.

Since I raised this subject in May 2011, I have been contacted by hundreds of families who have suffered the terrible anguish of stillbirth. Many of them have shared their stories with me, and I am in awe of how some of those parents have dealt with the worst of all possible situations.

A number of themes have started to fall together around the whole subject of stillbirth. Indeed, many parents had issues that were individual in their nature. If they had complaints about their treatment, they tended to sort them out for themselves. However, there was one very distinguishable theme that came out of my many conversations and e-mails—how to help parents grieve and eventually to move on. I believe that something simple can and should be done in that regard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. It is something that affects many people across all the constituencies in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that as things stand, the parents are not able to get the closure that they so desperately need? Although nothing can ease the pain, even to acknowledge that there was life in the first place would give a sense of closure to the family. It is a small thing but it could be of great comfort to a grieving family.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, I do agree, and I shall come on to that point in the next couple of minutes. Certainly, that applies to a number of the parents to whom I have been speaking. Although no one will ever be able to give them back their baby, they almost feel as though the state is cheating them. It is as if their baby was never in existence. Having a birth and death certificate might help them get over that point in their grief so that they can move on.

[Jim Shannon]

The issue for parents is coming to terms with the emotional trauma that they have been through. Having a certificate will mean a terrible lot to those people, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is my intention in raising this debate today. However, this is about not just the certification element, which I hope the Minister will answer, but the need for more awareness of all the issues around stillbirth and neo-natal care.

Having the flexibility for parents to be able to choose to have a birth and death certificate for babies born after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy but showing no signs of life, would massively help a large number of parents in their grief and show that the state recognises that they had a wonderful child. As some parents would be distressed at the possibility of having to go down that route, I wonder whether we could have a more flexible system whereby parents have the choice of a formal birth certificate, a stillbirth certificate issued by the hospital or—if they so choose—nothing. In modern society, we have the ability and sensibility to deal with the matter of certification, which is important to most of the parents to whom I have spoken because it is a simple process of formally naming their deceased baby.

Over the course of my time in this place, I have raised the matter of stillbirth certification a number of times. However, on each occasion I have received a similar reply from the Department of Health. One reply said:

“The registration of stillbirths and live births serve different purposes.”

It helps Departments collect statistical data and

“enables us to monitor the causes of stillbirth.”

Another reply said:

“Different state benefits are available to parents depending on whether a child was live-born or stillborn, so it is important to be able to distinguish one certificate from another.”

I completely understand the need for the state and the Department to be able to collect these important data for use in research. In fact, I am keen to encourage the Department to do more. However, I simply cannot understand why in 2012, with all the modern technology that we have at our disposal, we cannot, in a sophisticated way, collect all the data that are required and issue birth and death certificates when they are requested by parents.

Winterbourne View

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I have tried to be clear on my views on what has been happening—it has been going on for years. As I have said, the fact that someone is sent 200 miles away from home creates the conditions in which abuse is more likely than if they are in their own community. I want that to end—I want to be as clear as I can that that is a national scandal that needs to be brought to an end.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I also watched the “Panorama” programme last night and was horrified. According to the local council and the Minister, changes have been made. Will he confirm that the lessons learned will be conveyed to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that this terrible abuse never happens again anywhere in the UK?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman makes an essential point. Wherever people are, they must be protected from potential abuse and benefit from high standards of care. I will give him my absolute assurance that we will work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that people receive that benefit, wherever they are in the UK.

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

Yes, I can confirm that that is the case. The Secretary of State spoke to the relevant Health Ministers this morning. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman reassurance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Following on from what the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has asked, may I ask the Minister, in relation to Northern Ireland, what investigations have taken place to ensure that no one was detained illegally, and whether there are likely to be challenges from people who have been sectioned? I am afraid that they might have reason to claim against the Government for that purpose, given that no legislation was in place. Please excuse the condition of my voice, by the way.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am afraid that I struggled slightly to hear all the points that he was making. Perhaps the best way of dealing with all this is to ensure that I respond in writing to all his questions. I can also assure him that the Secretary of State spoke to the Northern Irish Minister yesterday and briefed them fully on the situation. There is good liaison there.

Our current assessment is that about 2,000 doctors were not approved properly in line with the provisions of the 1983 Act, and that those doctors have participated in the detention of between 4,000 and 5,000 of the patients currently detained in NHS or independent sector hospitals. There are two important points that I would like to make clear now. First, the decision to detain a patient under the Mental Health Act is primarily a clinical one. There is no suggestion, and no reason to believe, that the irregularity of the approval process for these doctors has resulted in any clinically inappropriate decision being made, whether the decision was to detain or not to detain. Nor is there any suggestion that the doctors approved by mental health trusts are anything other than entirely properly qualified to make these recommendations.

All the proper clinical processes were gone through when these patients were detained. There is no reason why the irregular approval process should have led to anyone being in hospital who should not be—or vice versa—and no patients have suffered because of this. The doctors had no reason to think that they had not been properly approved; they acted in total good faith and in the interests of the patients throughout this period. As of Friday last week, the SHAs concerned had corrected their procedures and all the doctors involved had been properly approved. I hope that that addresses the question raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds).

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. This is all about giving power to patients. Personal budgets have already been very successful in social care, and there are pilots under way in health care; the indications are that they are proving very successful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The NHS has a responsibility for all patients in ill health, especially those who are elderly. Is the Minister aware of the information released last week that 3,000 general practitioners have drawn up a list of 7,000 patients who have less than a year to live—in other words, whose level of care is in question? Will the Minister condemn that list and take every possible step to ensure that every patient gets NHS care, irrespective of age?

[Norman Lamb]

The whole purpose of that approach is to ensure that patients get appropriate care at the end of their life. There is very strong consensus supporting that approach, including on the part of Marie Curie Cancer Care and Age UK. It is really important that all GPs and others involved in the care of people at the end of their life engage fully with the patient and the patient’s loved ones. That is the right approach.

Oral Health Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the question of oral health in the UK. Oral health is given far too little attention, in terms of what practitioners can bring to improving a population’s general health, as well as how it can be used to prevent the development of disease. Rather like opticians, our dentists are undervalued, in terms of what they can bring to the table to help to improve our nation’s health. Perhaps it is because dentists are not the most popular group in society—although I suspect that they are outdone by politicians. Why is going to the dentist not seen as a pleasurable experience? I will leave that to others to judge, but although going to the dentist may not be pleasurable, it is absolutely essential, and good practice starts right at the beginning, with the emergence of milk teeth.

Here in the UK we can be proud of many of our successes in achieving a good quality of oral health. The UK is one of the top-performing countries for oral health in Europe, but there is still much we can do. In fact, a recent joint report by Wrigley and GlaxoSmithKline suggests that Britons love their teeth and take very good care of them compared with our European neighbours. More Britons have more of their natural teeth than people in any other European country, and since the 1980s Britain has cut its decayed, missing and filled teeth score by two thirds. That is an impressive step, but there is certainly still room for improvement—I should explain, Mr Speaker, that Wrigley is based in my constituency.

I recently attended the launch of the report and listened with great interest to Professor Ken Eaton talking in detail about the work that has been going on across Europe looking at patterns of dental health. Other speakers included Dr Nigel Carter from the British Dental Health Foundation and Juliette Reeves, a dental hygienist and nutritionist with over 30 years’ experience. All the speakers set out clearly the importance of dental checks in the early identification of a number of diseases, particularly cancers, which we know are growing in prevalence, mouth cancers in particular. There has been a 48% increase in mouth cancers in the last 12 years. Early identification can make all the difference, in terms of the treatment required and the survivability of the patient. Dental health problems can also be indicative of other diseases, such as diabetes. All those issues are easily picked up during a dental health check. One of the good things in the new contract for NHS dentistry is that it recognises the importance of prevention. This will be challenging for some in the profession to implement, as they will have to change the way in which they work, but most dentists will learn to accept that prevention should be a priority.

The report’s evidence showed that although a majority of us in the UK keep to the suggested practice of brushing twice a day, only half of us brush for two minutes or longer—the rest of us just whizz around and hope that is sufficient—and that almost two thirds of us eat or drink between brushing and going to bed at night. There is clearly space to improve our personal oral hygiene practices, and there is scope for policy and campaigns to achieve that.

Personal oral hygiene is essential. Dental disease is completely preventable, and so, therefore, are those occasionally uncomfortable visits to the dentist when invasive treatment is necessary. These diseases constitute a significant public health problem across the UK and Europe. I cannot stress strongly enough that prevention is the key, and it needs to be encouraged. Many will say that the treatment is expensive. Yes, it can be, but when set against the money saved by regular dental checks reducing the likelihood of more complex treatment, the expense looks like good value for families. The prevention of debilitating diseases will certainly reduce the social and economic costs for the country and the individual.

Curative dental care is a significant economic burden across Europe, with spending close to €9 billion. In the UK, the cost is substantial. An estimated 0.5% of gross domestic product was spent on oral health care services in 2010, and that figure is rising. Expenditure on treatment for oral diseases often exceeds that for other diseases, including cancer, heart disease, stroke and dementia, yet the simple fact is that the causes of most oral diseases in the UK are preventable through cost-effective measures that would ultimately save the taxpayer money. Brushing, flossing, using mouthwash and chewing sugar-free gum—a much-maligned practice that is actually quite effective—could all be more effectively promoted to help to keep dental costs down in Britain, and the sharing of good practice should be encouraged.

Policy needs to be designed and implemented to improve research into oral health promtion. There is currently a lack of comparable data across Europe, although the report goes some considerable way towards addressing that problem. To tackle the burden of oral disease we also need to consider taking action in various ways, some of which have been suggested in the report on the state of oral health in Europe, which I hope the Minister has had an opportunity to read. The report suggests the need to address increasing oral health inequalities, improve the data and knowledge base and support the development of the dental work force.

We should be proud that Britain is a high achiever when it comes to oral health in Europe, but there is certainly room for improvement. Despite our successes, oral diseases remain a burden for much of the population, and the economic impacts are significant. There needs to be a greater focus on prevention rather than treatment, and improvements in education and awareness are also needed.

I am proud that we have the Peninsula dental school in Plymouth. I was asked by my local media why I had chosen oral health as the subject for this debate when so many other issues could have been raised. That was a good question. Having the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), here to respond is of course a good reason. There is also the small question of the ballot for Adjournment debates. MPs often put in for a number of debates over the Session, and we cannot tell which one will be lucky enough to come out of the ballot. I was lucky on this occasion.

Also, one of the first major campaigns that I was involved with when I was first elected to Parliament was to get a dental school sited in Plymouth. I remember fighting tooth and nail—the pun is intended—for that, alongside my former colleague, Linda Gilroy, and experts such as Sir John Tooke. It was during that campaign that I began to understand just how important good dental health is, and how essential it is that we train our dentists and technicians to the highest standards. My subsequent involvement in the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry, which is chaired so well by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), has maintained my interest in the subject.

The groundbreaking training offered by Peninsula in Plymouth closely links the trainee dentists and technicians to local communities that have historically had very low levels of contact with dentists, and it is making a difference. This was one of the strong points of the case we made for a dental school in Plymouth.

We have an excellent community development team at the dental school who ensure that the training includes opportunities to go out into these communities, taking dentistry to “places it has never gone before”. Some of the projects included highlighting the impact of high-sugar drinks for professional rugby players at Plymouth Albion; making mouth guards for them; offering oral health advice to local schools; and letting children enjoy and play in a clinical environment to make it less scary. The dental school also works alongside experts to support people with drug and alcohol abuse issues, and is certainly doing some excellent work around oral cancer and smoking cessation with young adults and teenagers.

There continues to be concern about access to dentists in some parts of the country. In Plymouth, we have good months and bad months. Since the start of 2012, however, improvements have been made, with an additional 6,500 NHS places coming on stream in our city. This is possible in part because the graduate dentists from the dental school are staying in the area—yet another reason why we so wanted a dental school in Plymouth. I was pleased that the then Labour Government recognised the importance of dental training—unlike the last Tory Government, who closed dental schools.

There continues to be an issue about the cost of dental care and treatment for many families, particularly in the recession. That cost is still not easily met by some families.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for bringing this matter to the House for discussion. Oral health is a big issue right across the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, some plans have been mooted to introduce fluoridation in the water. That has been resisted by the Northern Ireland Assembly and resisted by the population of Northern Ireland. A new consultation process has started, but it will again be resisted. Does the hon. Lady feel that the best way of addressing tooth decay is, as she has already indicated, by regular brushing and diet, and not by fluoridation of the water?

[Alison Seabeck]

I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. I feel equally strongly about it, but I disagree wholeheartedly with him, not least because a lot of toothpaste has fluoride in it in any case. Neither of my daughters, now 30 and 26—they will probably kill me for revealing their ages—has any fillings, and they have lived in an area with full fluoridation. They have had no side-effects at all either.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is generous in allowing me to intervene again. There are statistics and information showing that fluoridation of water leads to osteoporosis and other diseases. Is it not important to be careful before pursuing a policy that could affect people’s health negatively rather than help them?

[Alison Seabeck]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I am sure the population in his area will continue to have that debate, but I am convinced by the data and information that I have seen that, on balance, fluoridation of the water is a good thing. I was intending to touch on it later, but I shall now skip around it.

I will come back to the issue of families and the cost of dental care. Brushing teeth from an early age is certainly something we should all be doing; it has no significant cost and has positive outcomes. Dental treatment can be expensive, so a dental contract that focuses on prevention, works with people identified as having a higher risk of dental decay and takes a more risk-based approach—patient by patient—could lead to some families spending less on their visits to the dentist each year. That would obviously be a good thing for those families. Those people who have no visible issues of tooth decay—an increasing number in the UK, thanks in part to fluoridation—do not need a service focused on drill and fill. They need a system that rewards dentists for the preventive work they do, which should lead overall to less expensive treatments.

The wider use of expert dental hygienists to monitor and advise patients as well as to carry out treatments could have a significant benefit, although there will be some dental practices—these issues have been raised—that are not currently suitable and do not have enough space to accommodate the additional clinics. Some of the proposed changes could be problematic for them. I would welcome an update from the Minister about whether he is picking up concerns from some of the pilots as to whether or not this is an issue. The result of the contract pilots will be crucial when it comes to deciding whether the patient, as well as the dentist, benefits from the change in emphasis. The wider health benefits of preventive work will also save the NHS money, if other health problems are caught early. Preventive work can save lives, which is obviously hugely important.

I urge the Minister to consider whether, as well as the pilot schemes, further public information campaigns are needed to make the general public aware of the growing number of oral cancers that are linked to smoking and alcohol consumption—particularly among young women—and the importance of brushing babies’ first teeth. It should be emphasised that dental care can be preventive, rather than something that we all have to suffer when we have toothache.

I know that companies such as Wrigley run their own campaigns linked to their products and support wider campaigns such as Keeping Britain Smiling, but, given the massive cost to the NHS of poor dental health and linked ill health, the Government also have a role to play. I hope that the Minister will not only take on board the concerns raised by me and by others, but will tell me about the steps that are currently being taken, and about those that may be planned. I invite him to come down to Plymouth, visit the dental school and look at some of the outreach work that it is doing in deprived communities, because I think that there are some very good lessons to be learnt.

We should all speak to and lobby our health commissioners to ensure that those who are involved in the new health commissioning system understand what dentists can contribute to an overall reduction in poor health and the early identification of health problems. I hope that the Minister will note that plea.