Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work for the British Polio Fellowship, which is a good charity that makes a real difference. He is right that the condition is difficult to diagnose; the symptoms are vague and there is no definitive test. NICE is updating its best practice, and the British Polio Fellowship has developed guidelines that we all need to use to build GP awareness of the condition.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister said, there is no specific test for diagnosing PPS, so will he outline what information is offered to medical professionals to diagnose and treat the syndrome to ensure that the symptoms are correctly collated and not put down to other untestable issues, such as fibromyalgia?

[David Mowat]

As I said, the symptoms are vague and there is no definitive test. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) pointed out, awareness of the condition among GPs is not as high as it could be, so we need to do more, with the NICE guidelines and the work of the British Polio Fellowship, on GP education, training and information.

Accelerated Access Review

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat]

To be honest, I am not qualified to have an opinion on that. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that decisions of this sort should not be made by politicians and that there has to be a process around them. It is clear that if NICE is presented by Vertex with new clinical data, or indeed new price data—this is perhaps equally relevant, but we have not really discussed it—a review could be carried out quickly without any need for us to go through the whole process again. There is a precedent for that, and if those data exist and Vertex presents them, they would be looked at. I give my commitment, and certainly that of the Minister responsible for this policy area, that that would be the case and there is no impediment to that. I do not want to raise false hopes by saying that, and I do not think I have done so. The fact that it is not a near miss—it is possibly out by a factor of eight or 10—implies that there is quite a lot of work to do on pricing.

It is worth recapping what other countries have done. Orkambi is available in Germany, although it appears from the data available that its use there is quite mixed, with perhaps no more than one in five eligible people having access to it. In France, the other country in Europe that has authorised it, Vertex has booked no sales yet this year. The picture seems quite mixed in those countries. The countries that have not authorised Orkambi include Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

In my speech I mentioned a young girl from my constituency, Rachel, who has been on the Orkambi trials and shown exemplary improvements in her health. That is an example we can all point to of where goodness has come out of the drug for those who have had the opportunity to have it, and that is true not only in my constituency but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[David Mowat]

There is no dispute that the drug works, and there is no dispute at all that it is life-changing. The issue before us is the extent to which it justifies a price tag of £300 million to £400 million versus other NHS priorities. All I can say on that is that it is right that the decision is not made by politicians, for the reasons given earlier by the right hon. Member for Leigh.

I was discussing the countries that have so far not authorised Orkambi. Neither Scotland nor the Republic of Ireland accepted that it was cost-effective, and it is not used in Scandinavia or Canada either.

Terminal Illness: Support

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on bringing this debate to the House. This is an important subject and it is good that we have the chance to talk about it.

It is also good, as the hon. Lady said, that we are debating it on the UN’s International Volunteer Day. She reminded the House, if it needed reminding, how much of the palliative care burden is taken up by volunteers. We should all reflect on the fact that there are 6 million informal carers in this country. Without those people, things would be much more difficult. We have a carers strategy coming out in the next few months, which I will discuss during my speech.

The hon. Lady talked about her hospice, the work that the Marie Curie charity does there and the helper service it has pioneered in Newcastle. I am happy to acknowledge the fantastic work that hospices do. I have one in my constituency, St Rocco’s, which also does brilliant work. The hon. Lady used a good phrase: we should recognise that at their best hospices celebrate life. That is important.

The Government’s position is that high-quality, end-of-life care, reflecting individual needs, choices and preferences, should be available to everyone. That is our objective; that is what we are working to achieve. Much is being done, despite perhaps the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks. However, of course there is more to do: more can always be done. This is not something that will ever be finished, but I want to set the context in which we are working.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister has rightly acknowledged, as has the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), the importance of charities and the work that they do. In his response to the points that she has made, will he say what the Government intend to do for young carers who look after those who are at the end of life? I am aware of the pressure on those young carers given their age, and their ability to cope with the life-changing event that will happen to them and their family very shortly. We need something for them, Minister. Can I make a plea for them?

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right. There are about a quarter of a million informal carers under the age of 25, half of whom are under the 16-to-18 age range. There are issues for education and future employment. The carers strategy is addressing that and I will have more to say about that.

On the context, 480,000 people in England die every year. Thirty-six per cent. of those are over 85 and about 350,000 of those deaths are expected, in the sense that they are not a surprise. Roughly half that number get some specialist palliative care as part of the pathway. The hon. Lady talked about that not being enough, and I will come back to that. Forty-seven per cent. die in hospital, which is an improvement: 57% of people were dying in hospital 10 years ago. There is an emphasis—the charities, particularly Macmillan, are offering a lead on this—on ensuring that fewer people die in hospital.

In terms of authoritative evidence of how that is working—the hon. Lady mentioned some of the points made by Marie Curie—the Office for National Statistics conducts a yearly survey called “Bereaved VOICES”, which looks at how carers and bereaved people evaluate the last three months of the end-of-life care for their loved ones. About 75% of those services are regarded as good, excellent or outstanding. Ten per cent. are regarded as poor. Ten per cent. is 48,000 deaths a year, and that is still too high. Nevertheless, 75% of those services are regarded as good, excellent or outstanding. The highest proportion of those services are in hospices. Care homes rated about the same as hospices, with hospitals doing less well. The figures are patchy, however, and that is generally linked to deprivation. They are not as good in areas of relatively high deprivation as they are in other areas. That is partly because hospice availability is somewhat skewed by the fact that the charities that run them tend to operate in more affluent areas.

The hon. Lady mentioned the need for spiritual and emotional attention at the end of life, and I can tell her that 70% of those who responded to the survey regarded their loved ones as having received good or outstanding spiritual or emotional care. That reflects well on those in the voluntary sector and the NHS who provide that care, and we should acknowledge that.

I do not wish to sound complacent, because I acknowledge that things could and should be better. I have had this job for four or five months, and there are very few of the areas I cover in which the UK could be said to be the best in the world. Let us take cancer outturns as an example. We know that our one-year survival rates for most types of cancer are worse than those of most other countries in Europe. Last year, however, the Economist Intelligence Unit compiled a quality of death index, which evaluated 50 or 60 countries in the world against a number of criteria, and the UK came top in end-of-life care. As I have said, I do not know the situation across all the areas for which I am responsible, but we should acknowledge this finding. To put it into context, Germany came seventh, France came 10th and Sweden came 16th. That has been achieved through the work of people in charities and in the NHS, but we must also acknowledge that things could be better.

The hon. Lady spoke about social care funding—although that is a slightly different area—and about delayed transfers of care and all that results from them. I have acknowledged many times in the Chamber that social care funding is under pressure and that that can cause delayed transfers of care, or bed-blocking, if we want to use that term. However, in terms of adult social care, if we compare the top 10% of councils with the bottom 10%, we see that there is a factor of 30 times in the difference between their performance in delayed transfers of care. That is not related to budgets; it is related to best practice, leadership and all that goes with that. We are sometimes quick to say that money is always the issue, but although that is of course part of it, it is not the only issue. It is important to understand that other factors are involved. Among other areas that need to be improved, we need to continue our drive to ensure that more people do not receive their end-of-life care in hospitals, where they generally do not wish to be. We should also acknowledge that there can be non-uniform commissioning among clinical commissioning groups, and we can do better in that regard as well.

The hon. Lady talked about the choice review, which was produced in 2014 by the National Council for Palliative Care, helped by Macmillan and Marie Curie. It contained some 62 recommendations. The Government’s response came out in July—it was one of the last acts of my predecessor—in the form of a five-point charter. In it, we accepted that we would have personalised care plans in place by 2020, that everyone was entitled to an honest discussion about their end-of-life care and to support in making informed choices, that family and carers would be involved in those choices, and that all people going through an end-of-life process would have an identified contact at all times.

Those elements will need to be implemented right across NHS processes, technologies and pathways, and we have set up the end-of-life care board under Bruce Keogh, the chief medical officer, to oversee that. All arm’s length bodies will be represented on the board. This has not yet been published—it is my role to ensure that it is—but the requirement now is to turn the commitments in the review response into tangible milestones, deliverables and responsibilities. I recently met several members of the End of Life Care Coalition and undertook to have a transparent process so that between 2016 and 2020 we know what we are implementing and when and how that is being done. It is important that that happens. We are extremely committed to it—it is a Government priority. We could do things better as a country, but we do pretty well and we need to do this to make things even better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the big issues with ovarian cancer—we talked about this earlier—is that early diagnosis does not happen as quickly as it should. It is true that the cervical cancer test could raise awareness of ovarian cancer. We are looking at the issue and will revert to the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Ovarian cancer accounts for some 12% of all new cases, and early diagnosis is critical. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Assemblies to co-ordinate and make available better treatment options, to provide a truly UK-wide NHS?

[David Mowat]

This is a reserved matter, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that early diagnosis is the single most important thing that we need to do better in order to improve our cancer out-turn rates, and that dialogue continues.

National Arthritis Week

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Thursday 20th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Foyle on leading the charge—[Hon. Members: “Strangford!”] I beg your pardon; I meant the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon]

I have more hair than the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), but not much more.

[David Mowat]

Don’t take it as a compliment. It has been a long day.

It seems extraordinary, thinking about some of the subjects we debate, that it has been five years since we have debated this subject in the House of Commons. The debate has been such a pleasure, and I am sure that hon. Members here will see to it that it is not five years before we debate it again. An objective of having a debate in Westminster Hall is to raise awareness. People watch these things, so it is right that we do that and it is important that we do it again next year.

I have been a Minister for about two months, during which time I have met many people, so it has probably been remiss of me not to have met with Arthritis Research UK yet. I am keen to do that. Its representatives are pushing at an open door if they would like to come and see me. As the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) said, it is about action, not words. We will organise that meeting if Arthritis Research UK would like it to happen.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the statistics, but I will repeat them because they are so important. Some 10 million people in the UK—one in six of the population—have an MSK condition. The most common, with 3 million sufferers, is osteoporosis. One in six is an extraordinary figure, and there are 200 variations of MSK conditions. One in 10 people in the UK suffers chronic pain as a consequence of arthritis.

The numbers are mind-boggling. Some 20% of GP consultations are due to MSK conditions, and this at a time when our GP services are stretched in Scotland and in England. MSK conditions account for 30% of GP consultations for the over-55s, and some 7.5 million working days are lost each year. This long-term condition alone costs the NHS between £4 billion and £6 billion, so it is right that we are having this debate.

There have been a number of interesting and useful speeches. Westminster Hall is sometimes a better place to debate such topics. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about lifestyle factors and preventive factors, and he and another Member made an interesting point about DWP and PIP. We need to be more joined up in how we deal with some of these long-term conditions, particularly as they become more prevalent. He also talked extensively and knowledgeably about research—he has clearly been well briefed—and about what we are doing.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made an excellent speech about her personal experience, and she emphasised the overlap with mental health. She talked about first suffering from this during her election campaign last year. In fact, it prevented her from canvassing. I note that she got 36,000 votes and her vote went up by 6%. I do not know whether those factors are related. Well done on 36,000. We pass on our congratulations and awe at her performance.

European Medicines Agency

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat]

We can agree that the scientific principles at the core of our world-leading science must not be lost in regulation. We can also agree that science is international. It is in all our interests, and in the interests of our communities and our children, that this country continues to do world-class science as part of an international collaboration. That is the Government’s intent and will.

I will finish by talking about our world-class industry.

[Jim Shannon]

I have asked a couple of questions about muscular dystrophy on behalf of my constituents. I do not expect the Minister to give me a response today, but I remind him gently to provide a written response and perhaps make it available to other hon. Members who are here.

[David Mowat]

Clearly when I used the word “finish”, people sprang into action. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a written answer to his questions on muscular dystrophy.

We do world-class science in this country. We must continue to do so, and to have a world-class pharmaceutical industry, with all that means for value added and input to the Exchequer. Governments are not the reason why we are among the best in the world in gene therapy and cell therapy, and they are not the reason why we have built £60 billion pharmaceutical organisations GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. It is important that we get the regulatory environment right, and the Department of Health and the Department for Exiting the European Union will ensure that the negotiations we are about to have address those issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Bearing in mind that cases of Lyme disease have quadrupled in the past 12 years, and that some of those cases have been in my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland, what has been done with the devolved Assemblies in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure that a UK-wide strategy is put in place to address this trend and to provide effective diagnosis and treatment?

[David Mowat]

The principal thing that we need to do with Lyme disease is to make progress on diagnosis, treatment and transmission through a definitive approach. When the results of the study that I mentioned are published, of course they will be available across all parts of the United Kingdom.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

I support that, and I just reiterate the words the Chancellor used: those who have the worst values in our society are being used to fund those who have the best values in our society. That just about sums it up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[David Mowat]

I have given way twice already, so I am sorry but I am not going to do so now.

I wish to say a little about the carbon price floor, because I was delighted that the Chancellor has acted on it. The action makes no difference to our commitments on the overall carbon reduction profile that this country has made, but it makes a great difference to the potential carbon leakage we are facing in our great energy-intensive industries, particularly in the north-west and north-east. Some 900,000 people work in energy-intensive industries in our country, and I sometimes think they are forgotten in our dialogue about energy prices. It is worth understanding that what the Chancellor has done is remove the straitjacket on costs, which would have put a great deal of those jobs at risk. For example, we have already lost primary aluminium smelting in this country—it has moved out of the UK—and we are losing marginal chemicals capacity from this country. I am surprised that a number of Opposition Members are not more exercised about this issue in general, given that they represent parts of the north-east, where there is heavy chemical manufacturing, and there are a lot of energy-intensive industries and a lot of jobs, because we cannot rebalance our economy back towards manufacturing if we have differentially high energy prices in this country. We just will not be able to do that—it will not happen.

This issue is not just about what is happening in the United States on shale gas and shale prices; it is also about what is happening on mainland Europe. It is an inconvenient truth—to use a known phrase—in this whole issue of carbonisation that we produce not only considerably less carbon per head than the EU average, but less carbon per capita. We produce 30% less carbon per head and carbon per capita than Germany, yet Germany is pursuing a policy of building unabated coal power stations at scale. We are being left behind in all that, and what the Chancellor has done on the framework is absolutely spot on and will make a difference to those 900,000 jobs. I predict that we will be revisiting this issue at the next Budget and certainly into the next Parliament, because there is a great deal of unfinished business in this area.

Before I leave the field of energy, may I say in passing that the infrastructure plan is very welcome? Two big parts of the national infrastructure plan are Hinkley Point C and Wylfa—together they make up about a quarter of it. They are both vital to our country and our economy. Both are currently under EU state aid investigation, which is holding up the projects. I have heard Ministers saying that they are confident that they will have that agreed, and I very much hope that is the case, because it would be a great paradox if those low-carbon projects, which are essential to our energy security and to our decarbonisation efforts, are held up within the EU at the same time as our EU partners are building unabated coal power stations at scale in countries such as Holland, Germany and Belgium.

I want to move on now to tax avoidance and tax evasion. The Red Book shows incremental revenue of £2 billion over the next two years from the anti-abuse legislation that we introduced. I very much welcome the Chancellor reducing the level of corporate avoidance of stamp duty from £2 million to £500,000. The closure of that tax loophole has brought in hundreds of millions of pounds. It is an example, as I said at the start of my remarks, of why income equality is so much better now than it was under the previous Government.

I also welcome the up-front taxation of tax schemes, which means that if people get involved in controversial schemes, they will not be saving tax and cash flow as they wait to go to tribunal. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also able to act more quickly than it has hitherto been able to do.

There were four tests today, and the Chancellor has passed them and any reasonable expectation of this Budget. I am happy to support it.

Pension Industry

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Mowat

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

I agree. The key word that the hon. Gentleman used in that intervention was “transparency”. If the market is to work, there must be transparency and comparability, but it seems to me that there are people in the industry who do not want the market to work. The market might work better if independent advice were freely available, but in the past the industry has effectively controlled advisers by treating them as paid intermediaries with a commission structure that compromised their independence, and between 2002 and 2007 its payments to such intermediaries for their advice rose by 50%. Hopefully the RDR—the retail distribution review will deal with the problem, and I give the Government credit for that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this matter tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned people who have taken out small pensions and who also fall into a tax bracket. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that their position should also be reviewed by the Government?

[David Mowat]

I shall be making a number of suggestions to the Minister later, and I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I also give the Government—in fact, the last Government —credit for setting up the National Employment Savings Trust, without which auto-enrolment would be entirely untenable. Given its low charges and what appears to be a sensible investment policy, the organisation has an important contribution to make. However, as I shall make clear later, I think that the Government could be more radical about what NEST can achieve.

Let me summarise the position by saying that the fund management part of the industry has evolved into a mess. The market has failed owing to asymmetry of information and lack of transparency, and we are about to impose auto-enrolment on top of that mess. The £35 billion of tax subsidy that is currently provided will increase, and will be supplemented by employer and employee contributions which will also run into the billions. Those cash flows ought to be finding their way into better pensions rather than into the Chelsea property market.

I ask the Minister to assure us that before any of this happens, he will take the following steps. First, there should be a template for charge structures that will facilitate transparency, comparability and reporting. An analogous debate is taking place in the Department of Energy and Climate Change about energy suppliers, who are being required to introduce tariffs that allow comparison. Exactly the same should happen in this industry: indeed, it is more important for it to happen in this industry than in energy.

Secondly, there should be a charges cap on any supplier who becomes involved in auto-enrolment. I was staggered to read in a written answer that the Minister did not consider that necessary. A 1% cap was applied to stakeholder pensions, and the same should apply in this case.

Thirdly, some of the restrictions on NEST should be removed. The philosophical basis of the contribution limit of £4,400 and the restrictions on transfers in and out was that the purpose of NEST was not to compete with the market, but to operate in the parts of the market in which organisations do not wish to operate. That is an inadequate approach, and I think that the Government should be more proactive. Finally, the Government must ensure that there is no further slippage in the introduction of the RDR. Unbiased investment advice is sorely needed, and needed soon.

I fear that unless those measures are adopted, auto-enrolment will compound a failure that could easily become our next mis-selling scandal.

Let me now say something about annuities. It is possible for people to take their pension pots and then purchase annuities that will support them for the rest of their lives. However, the background is already tough—quantitative easing and life expectancy have driven down annuity rates—and the solvency II requirements may make the position even worse. It is clearly critical that the public obtain the best value possible. This means shopping around, but that is exactly what the big players in the industry do not want to happen. They want to stop it because it is their belief that they “own” that customer relationship, and they want to turn that ownership into more profit using two techniques. The first is the attempt to make the transition from savings into annuity seamless. That means putting an application form in with the final pension statements along with their own quotes. This, combined with a relationship sometimes developed over decades, is often enough to trap retirees into unsuitable and inadequate products. The second technique is using the asymmetry of information that we have seen in other areas to ensure that the retiree would need a maths qualification and a lot of intellectual self-confidence to sort out a better deal.

I have mentioned complexity, and I found the following sorts of annuities on the web—enhanced, fixed, guaranteed, immediate needs, impaired, income, index-linked, joint life, lifetime, lump sum, protected rights, purchase life, single life, variable life, with profits and smokers. For the average punter to work out intelligently what is best for him and his family using that lot is very tough indeed. The fundamental business objective is simple, but that is not how the market has evolved. The consequence has been mis-selling on an epic scale. A recent report from the CASS business school mentioned an existing provider offering £3,600 for an annuity pot and then a subsequent provider offering £26,000. That may be an outlier, but the facts are that 90% of retirees buy pensions from their existing fund manager and a very high number of those get below what the open market would offer. This matters to the Government—or it should do—because those massive profits siphoned off by the industry are resulting in hardship and an increased reliance on state benefits.

What should we do? I have five suggestions for the Minister. First, the Government should consider setting up an equivalent of NEST, specialising in the low cost provision of annuities. The IT and business process challenges around annuity provision are easier, as the cash does not need to be collected. At a stroke, the Government could provide an organisation that was a hallmark for fairness and best practice. Lord Myners has suggested that the Government allow people to purchase Treasury bonds direct, which would fit in with my proposal.

Secondly, the Government should consider making it illegal for the organisation that administers the saving regime to also provide an annuity. The advantage of this is that it keeps the Government out altogether while helping to make the market work. At a stroke, we would get new entrants to the market who are likely to be smaller, hungrier and more efficient. There are many precedents for this in the private sector. I used to work in the IT industry and it was not uncommon for those who designed an application to be forbidden to bid for implementation, because the procurement people wanted to ensure that the relationship advantage that had developed did not affect the pricing for the final step.

Thirdly, if the Government continue the existing system, in which providers attempt this seamless transition, there should be a rule that an annuity provided should be signed off by an independent financial adviser. That is a simple step and would ensure that the lethal combination of asymmetry of information and “relationship abuse” do not combine to rip off the retiree.

The fourth measure is a similar regime for annuities as I have suggested for charges for investment funds. We should insist on a few, relatively simple categories, and that would force transparency and comparability, also forcing the market to work properly. I believe in the market, but in this industry it has not worked. The industry will say that standardisation will limit choice, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? This is a simple transaction that needs to be made easier.

Finally, the Government should implement a system in which retirees approaching the annuity purchase point are much better informed about their options. They should be able to go to the open market and it should be forbidden for application forms to be put in with the actual pension round-up statement. The National Association of Pension Funds has a number of sensible measures in this regard, but I am of the view that that fifth one, on its own, is not enough.

In summary, it is vital that our people in our country save more than they are saving at the moment, but we do not wish to continue saving if the tax relief on that is channelled off for the property market in Chelsea and does not go to the savers themselves. Ordinary families continue to be penalised by an industry that has made supranormal profits by creating and exploiting a market failure, and the Government need to address that. If the Minister allows auto-enrolment to go ahead without reform, we are setting the scene for the next mis-selling scandal. I understand that it is tough for him to resist the lobbyists, who will be all over him on this, but self-regulation is not enough and the time to act is now.