Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Poulter(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Poulter [V]
I thank the Minister for his helpful answers so far in response to the substantive question. I want to ask him specifically about access for homes in very rural areas, which have historically had not much better than dial-up speeds. How will he help those homes? In Suffolk, we have found that fibre-to-cabinet is not adequate in improving broadband speeds in many of our more rural parishes and villages. What will he do for very rural areas that need better than fibre-to-cabinet?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Poulter(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he has been a consistent and effective advocate for the rights of older and vulnerable citizens in all his time in the House. We must make sure, both through effective voter registration and through the effective roll-out of our vaccination programme, that older and vulnerable voters are in a position to take part in the democratic process, and I will work with the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution to do just that.
National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Poulter(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Poulter
I will come to TTIP shortly, and I think that I will be able to reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).
The Health and Social Care Act put in place an alternative route to the courts, through Monitor, to address abuses of the rules around procurement. The Bill would remove that alternative route, meaning that future complaints under the law would result in hugely costly legal processes for health care commissioners, and complaints would be considered by the courts, rather than by Monitor, a health expert regulator. That cannot be good for patients. The Bill would result in more money for the lawyers, and much less money for our NHS and the patients that it looks after.
Another important point is that by favouring NHS over non-NHS providers, the Bill would be a move against the voluntary and charity sector providers, such as Macmillan and Marie Curie, who have done so much to help care for patients for many years.
Dr Poulter
I am going to make some progress—I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me—because Mr Deputy Speaker is looking at me.
Dr Poulter
Points were made about the voluntary and charitable sector supporting innovative new models of care. Through the Newquay pathfinder project Age UK has provided volunteer support to vulnerable older people considered at risk. Under the home scheme the British Red Cross provides volunteer support to patients in their homes, which is aimed at preventing admission to, or facilitating discharge from, hospital. The charity has care in the home contracts with more than 30 NHS trusts and social services departments, and the scheme enables reduced admissions, increased convenience to patients, and many other associated benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned Macmillan. I like to talk about Macmillan, which has long provided vital support to patients right across the UK. It is collaborating with doctors in Staffordshire to transform cancer care and end-of-life care, and together they aim to commission care right across the patient journey. In cancer, that means commissioning prevention and health promotion, ensuring early diagnosis and prompt treatment through survivorship and improving end-of-life care.
In reality, the only route proposed in the Bill for recourse against unfair treatment by commissioners is to take us back to the previous Labour Government’s competition laws in 2006 and open up legal challenge through the courts. Only private providers with enough resource behind them are likely to be able to afford to exist in that court-based system, to pay high legal fees, and to invest in providing NHS care to patients, and smaller providers, especially charities, will lose out. Surely we do not want to see that in our NHS—an NHS in which, I hope we all agree, charitable and small local health care organisations have something important to contribute for the benefit of patients.
Before I conclude, I must briefly address some of the misleading commentary that has surrounded TTIP, which is serving only to distract from the real debate about our NHS. First, may I state that there is absolutely no agenda whatsoever to privatise our NHS through the back door? TTIP cannot force the privatisation of public services by EU member states. This position has been made explicitly clear by us and by the relevant negotiating parties. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous and, frankly, wrong. I encourage Members to look at the recent negotiating mandate published by the European Commission, where this position is made absolutely clear. I note the comments of Ignacio Garcia Bercero, EU chief negotiator, on the record at the end of round 7 negotiations—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is absolutely not a point of order, but we will hear from some other speakers if we can get to the end of this speech. We might then hear some other parts of the debate.
Dr Poulter
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have mentioned the benefit to patients many times in my speech, because that is, after all, what I care about as a doctor and what I care about as a Health Minister, and what I hope all hon. Members care about; I know that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) does so.
Additionally, and contrary to claims made by some, TTIP will not prevent any future Government from changing the legal framework for the provision of NHS services. Neither will it prevent the termination of the private provision of such a service in accordance with the law or contracts entered into, as is already the case today. The reassurances that we and the European Commission offered were sufficient for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), a previous shadow Health Secretary, when he stated:
“On the NHS....my direct discussions with the EU’s chief negotiator have helped produce an EU promise to fully protect our health service including, as the chief negotiator says in a letter to me, so that: ‘any ISDS provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS.”
If it was good enough for the right hon. Gentleman—
Budock Hospital Site
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Poulter(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate and on her ongoing tremendous advocacy on behalf of her constituents. She talked eloquently of her own knowledge of the school—“care farm” is the expression I would use in my constituency—and the relationship between the school and the old hospital. She highlighted the importance when looking for value in NHS land of doing as much as possible to maximise the land receipt and put that money back into the NHS, but of course NHS land is community land, and it is important that, wherever possible, we work with surrounding communities to support them in local activities that benefit the population.
My hon. Friend also outlined eloquently the challenges faced by more rural parts of the country, and Cornwall in particular. We know that community resources and facilities are much scarcer in rural areas, as she highlighted in her speech. When we look at the affordability of local homes and the provision of community facilities, rurality is an important consideration and one that we always bear in mind in the NHS.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s interest in the Budock hospital site and support her concern that best use be made of public sector land not only in releasing its monetary value, but regarding the availability of affordable homes for local people to live in. I understand that NHS Property Services has intervened to begin the process of facilitating a mutually beneficial resolution of the issues previously hindering the sale of this land to the local school. Those issues predate the transfer of ownership to NHS Property Services, and were between the former Cornwall and Isles of Scilly primary care trust and Falmouth school. Thanks to swift action since NHS Property Services took over control of the NHS estate, the issues are well on their way to being unlocked. NHS Property Services inherited a portfolio of 4,000 other properties from 161 disparate previous NHS organisations on 1 April, and a win-win resolution is now in sight.
I am sure we will have other debates on similar matters, so it is worth outlining to the House the role of NHS Property Services and some early successes that have occurred. On 1 April, NHS Property Services inherited about 4,000 NHS assets, including health centres, office accommodation, care homes and hospital buildings. It houses about 12,000 tenants and is valued at more than £3 billion. It also inherited more than 3,000 members of staff from former PCTs and strategic health authorities throughout England. This brand new organisation is already doing tremendous work in the face of this huge challenge to create efficient, fit-for-purpose facilities and services for the benefit of patients and the public. All too often in the past, there was an unacceptable variability in estates management—not just in this case, but throughout the NHS—by PCTs and SHAs. The advantage of having estate management under one central roof has already paid dividends throughout the NHS. The creation of NHS Property Services has generated an opportunity to explore options to bring together a fragmented system—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just gently remind the Minister that this is a very tight debate? We are talking about one site; we should be dealing with Falmouth and nowhere else. There may be a good story to tell but we can save that for another day.
Dr Poulter
Indeed. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the task in hand. There are many good stories to tell from other constituencies but you are quite right; we should focus on how successes in Ludlow and South Suffolk can be translated into success at the Budock hospital site.
The focus of NHS Property Services is about resolving some local planning concerns where PCTs have had difficulties in the past, which is what we are going to concentrate on. I understand that Falmouth school’s plans to purchase the Budock site pre-date the transfer of land to NHS Property Services on 1 April 2013. The school and the former Cornwall and Isles of Scilly primary care trust had previously agreed to enter into a land swap to release the school’s playing fields—which were difficult to access—for the hospital site. The NHS was then to dispose of the playing fields for housing land.
I understand that differences in the size and estimated value of the sites, and planning permission issues, had prevented both parties from reaching agreement to progress this proposal, which commenced some time ago in 2011.
The Government’s priority for easing the shortage of land for housing development is to see development take place in sustainable locations; the predominantly brownfield sites of some of the old NHS estate no longer used for clinical purposes can help bring forward land for affordable homes to be built for local families. The Budock site is brownfield land and is located in a settlement that is forecast to experience significant growth over the coming years, as my hon. Friend outlined.
The site was assessed under the Cornwall strategic housing land availability assessment and found to be suitable for approximately 100 dwellings. My hon. Friend will also be aware that Treasury guidelines on managing public money state that public sector organisations may transfer assets among themselves without placing the property on the open market, provided they do so at market prices. They also state that the organisations should work collaboratively on the transfer to agree a price, and that it is good practice to commission a single independent valuation to settle the price to be paid. My hon. Friend said that is the plan in this case.
I am pleased to report that NHS Property Services and the school have agreed that the original proposal can be revisited, with a planned joint instruction to the district valuer from both parties. NHS Property Services has agreed with Falmouth school that it will take the Budock hospital site off the market while reviewing the original land swap option. To enable both the school and NHS Property Services to deliver these proposals, support will be required from the local planning authority to ensure that a clear planning brief is available for both sites. I am sure my hon. Friend will be helpful in facilitating that accord. This will ensure that both organisations and the district valuer can understand and agree an estimated value for both sites.
This value can be demonstrated in land value and in wider community benefits such as housing, health and well-being, and education and leisure use. My hon. Friend eloquently outlined the many local sports and leisure groups that are hugely supportive of this project, and rightly so. The project will be for the sake of the local community and would be beneficial as well to the NHS through the profits from the land, which could be distributed elsewhere to support local NHS projects.
The potential outcome from this approach is a win-win situation for the local community, the school and the NHS. NHS Property Services will be able to maximise receipts from the sale of the current school playing fields for reinvestment in front-line NHS services. Falmouth school and the wider community will benefit from improved access to leisure facilities on the former hospital site, and much needed housing development in the Falmouth area will be brought one step closer. I understand that an initial report setting out the context and options for the proposed transaction can be delivered within six weeks. That will require the co-operation of the school, NHS Property Services and, importantly, the local planning authority. The report should set out a programme to include a target of three to six months for initial agreement, in the form of a contract to be reached for the transaction. This could take a number of forms, subject to the advice that both parties receive from the district valuer—contract for sale and option agreement.
This evening my hon. Friend has eloquently outlined the case for why the project should go ahead. I will of course be monitoring progress on the ground. The door is always open for her to come and see me if there are further problems or concerns. I am sure that her tremendous advocacy on behalf of her constituents will continue to unlock the potential of these proposals and make them a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS Reorganisation
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Poulter(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Poulter
This is very much the point. Let us not forget that Monitor was introduced by the Labour party to regulate competition in foundations trusts, and the Government are looking at giving it a slightly increased role while also cutting £5 billion-worth of bureaucracy in the NHS, which has to be a good thing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that £5 billion would be much better spent on patients rather than on management and paper trails.
The core of the issue is that Government Members would like GPs to be placed at the heart of the commissioning process. Giving power to doctors and health care professionals is undoubtedly a good thing because the best advocates for patients are undoubtedly doctors and other health care professionals rather than faceless NHS bureaucrats. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is sitting next to me because far too often in Suffolk damaging decisions to remove vital cardiac and cancer care services from Ipswich hospital have been taken by the strategic health authority and the primary care trust, against the advice of front-line professionals. Community hospitals in my constituency in Hartismere have been closed despite GP advice that we need to look after older people and the growing older population. Putting GPs and health care professionals in charge of the new system will bring better joined-up thinking between primary and secondary care, which does not happen at the moment because GPs are often hindered in what they are trying to do and are unable to communicate effectively with the hospital doctors and trusts they need to talk to because of PCTs intervening in the process. Bureaucrats are getting in the way of good medical decisions and the Bill will deal with that problem.
I am aware that others want to speak in this debate so I shall not speak for much longer. I think that all Government Members must oppose the motion. The hypocrisy of the Labour party in its dealings with health care and the NHS has been ably exposed by my right hon. Friends the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) and the Secretary of State. Government Members want to cut bureaucracy and put money into front-line patient care and helping patients. We believe that GPs and health care professionals are the best people to do that. We want a patient-centred NHS that is locally responsive to local health care needs and that will properly address the fact that we have an ageing population. We want joined-up thinking between adult social care and the NHS, which did not happen under the previous Government. For all those reasons, I commend the health care reforms to the House, and I beg the Conservative party to oppose the motion.