Covid-19 Response

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 11 March, I asked the Secretary of State whether it was right to allow more than 3,000 Atlético Madrid fans to travel to Anfield to watch a Champions League game when they could not have watched their team in Madrid, as attending football matches there was banned because it was a covid hotspot. The Liverpool city region now has a higher than average incidence of covid-19 than the UK and English average. The mayor of Madrid and the director of public health for the city of Liverpool have both said that it was a mistake to let the match go ahead. The Government’s deputy chief scientific adviser has said that the idea that there is a link is an “interesting hypothesis”. Does the Secretary of State now admit that the Government were behind the curve in not banning such a gathering, and will he undertake to investigate any possible link between that match and the higher incidence of covid in Liverpool?

[Matt Hancock]

This is, of course, a question for the scientists. What matters now is making sure that people—including in Liverpool and across the north-west—get the treatment that they need and that we get the curve under control.

Coronavirus

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Gosh, that is a blast from the past—that phrase was invented almost exactly 10 years ago. My hon. Friend is quite right, though. This is a national effort, and community shops can play a huge role in helping people to get the groceries and other supplies that they need. There has been much discussion of supermarkets. I am glad to say that the vast majority of supermarkets are playing an absolutely incredible part in this national effort; we are working very closely with them and have been for some time. Our community shops will be really embedded in their communities; they often know which people are going to need the most support, and have those personal relationships. As long as they are following the public health advice to ensure that the people they are helping are also kept healthy, then they have an important role to play in our national effort.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Can I press the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of the 3,000 or so Atlético Madrid fans who have travelled to Liverpool and are, at the moment, in a crowd of 54,000 at Anfield? Schools and colleges are closed in Madrid, and public gatherings of over 1,000 people are banned, because there is a cluster of 782 coronavirus cases and there have been 35 deaths. Now that we have a pandemic, is it really sensible for this to be allowed to continue? Both the Government and UEFA told the Liverpool Echo today that it is not up to them to take action—so who is it up to? Is it really sensible for fans who could not watch their team at home to be able to travel to Liverpool and watch their team play with 51,000 locals?

[Matt Hancock]

It is for Public Health England to make advice available and to give guidance. We will always follow the scientific advice on what makes the biggest impact. It is interesting, listening to the scientists, that sometimes the things that we, as lay people, may feel intuitively will have the biggest impact do not in fact have the biggest impact. The measures that we are taking and proposing to take include, for instance, looking at asking people who have symptoms, however mild, to stay at home. We are aiming to do the things that have the biggest impact. There are some things that feel right but do not have an impact at all. That is why it is so important to follow the science and what Public Health England says.

Wuhan Coronavirus

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have clearly communicated advice to all GPs and published it. I will not repeat it here, because what matters is that people follow the precise clinical guidelines set out by the medical leaders of the NHS and the chief medical officer.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his update to the House. It was reported in the Liverpool Echo that if anyone in quarantine at Arrowe Park falls ill—we hope that no one does—they will be treated at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital. I am sure that that is right and correct, but as a consequence many constituents have asked what that means and put safety questions to me. I have had no communication from Public Health England, Ministers or anyone else, so it is hard for me to reassure my constituents. Will he make sure that MPs from a broader range of places near the Wirral can get information from Public Health England and Ministers, so we can be in the frontline of reassuring our constituents?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. We are to hold a briefing with the lead Minister and the chief medical officer that is open to all MPs from across the House, so they can put questions directly to the chief medical officer and get the clinical evidence behind the decisions we are taking.

Specifically on the hon. Lady’s question, the Royal Liverpool is one of the best hospitals in the world for dealing with these sorts of disease. It is one of the hospitals that we identified in advance as a place where people with coronavirus would be taken. One of the advantages of using the facilities at Arrowe Park was its proximity. Transit from A to B will of course be in secure conditions, so that no one is affected on the way. People can rest assured that if a case emerges in the isolation area at Arrowe Park, we have plans in place to get those affected to Liverpool and into the hospital in a way that does not affect nearby residents. To be frank, local residents should be very proud of their hospital.

Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 General Committees

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to be here this morning serving under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer? I concur with the questions and remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, and with the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

I have one or two questions for the Minister about some of what I have seen in the draft regulations and the explanatory memorandum. She rightly says that only a small number of organs are shared between EU and non-EU countries, with fewer than 30 organs imported or exported on average. However, the draft regulations will come into force in a no-deal scenario, in which there will be no transition period and all the borders will go up. Only a small number of organs might come and go, but they are vital; many are a matter of life and death for the individual who will receive them. What arrangements has her Department made to make sure that those organs can get through?

The Government’s own preparedness documents suggest that there are going to be queues at borders. It is very easy to see how this kind of time-critical matter could get caught up in bureaucracy at borders. I know that the regulations are just about making arrangements, but I did not find anything in the Minister’s remarks or the explanatory memorandum to say what contingency arrangements the Government were making to ensure that the organs get through. That time-critical matter is often one of life and death. I would be grateful if the Minister said something about that.

There is no impact assessment because the Government have taken the view that the financial impact is lower than the £5 million threshold for which such documents are prepared. It would be helpful to have some idea of the extra cost that the arrangements provided for by these instruments would impose on the authorities that take on the job currently done by the Commission. Do the Government intend to reimburse them the extra money that that will cost? A six-month period is provided in the instruments for the new administrative arrangements, if necessary, to be made, but there is no reference—and the Minister did not make one—to whether the Government intend to reimburse those authorities for the extra work.

A small number of organisations import and export human tissue and organs, but I do not know how many there are. Can the Minister tell us and have the Government been talking in detail with them about precisely what they will need to do? There is the six-month period, but what precisely will those organisations have to do? I would be grateful for a little more detail from the Minister before we take a view on these instruments.

Dangerous Waste and Body Parts Disposal: NHS

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The key issue for performance under the contracts is what, contractually, the legal requirements on HES are and whether those contractual terms have been breached. Part of the lessons learned is to look at whether contractual enforcement powers are sufficient. In terms of moving forward in respect of the other HES sites, that will depend on the contracts that the supplier has and whether it is in breach of those contracts or of enforcement action from the Environment Agency. To date, the Environment Agency has served one partial suspension, on the Normanton site. As I referred to, the Environment Agency was at the other site over the weekend. This is an area of significant scrutiny, but it will be for the Environment Agency to determine whether the company is not in compliance with its permits.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

So far, the Minister appears to have been far more interested in contractual arrangements than in public accountability. Can he explain how come Cobra has met and this House has not been informed of it? This House should be informed about Cobra meetings as soon as possible after they are finished.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am not sure about the exact protocols for when Cobra should and should not be reported, but given that it usually deals with highly confidential matters, I would have thought that not every issue should necessarily be reported in the first instance. We have been focused not on contractual niceties, but on ensuring that the NHS continues to deliver first-class services. As I referred to earlier, this is the first opportunity we have had following the conference recess to notify the House, following the contractual arrangements being made.

Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked. We have announced today that we are improving the system of alerting both general practices and community pharmacies to ensure that the right advice is given and the right safeguards are in place, so that people who are pregnant or might become pregnant do not take a medicine that is very powerful and very effective in the right circumstances, but incredibly dangerous in the wrong ones.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to look further at these very concerning issues, but I fear that his putting them all in one place means that he may not be giving sufficient attention to the Primodos issue, which is a scandal of very many years’ standing. I do not think that the recent report of the expert working group is the basis on which Baroness Cumberlege or anyone else should look further at the matter, because it was a complete whitewash, and the Secretary of State needs to acknowledge that. I think that if he were to do so, the people affected by Primodos over the last 40 years or more would feel much more confident that the process that he has described today might enable them to secure some resolution.

[Mr Hunt]

I understand why the hon. Lady has asked her question in the way that she has, but we set up the expert working group after a lot of very careful thought because we honestly wanted an answer. We are faced with circumstances in which scientists disagree, and in those circumstances it would not be right for me, as Secretary of State, to announce a different scientific view. I think that the right thing to do is to allow someone the time and space in which to look at the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, and that is what Baroness Cumberlege will do.

Adult Social Care Funding

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

That is exactly why I said that this has to be a one-system solution. We need the NHS to work on delayed transfers of care, but we need local authorities to work with us as well, which is what the better care fund is all about. We know that it is better for people to be cared for in their own home, but that is not always possible, which is why we need a long-term solution to the funding of adult social care that deals with not only residential but domiciliary, care—and that is why we tried to introduce that debate during the election.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Liverpool City Council spends more on adult social care than it is able to raise in council tax, yet still has more of a cut to make, and pays a very low level of fees as a consequence. Can the Minister give an assurance that councils such as Liverpool will not be further disadvantaged when he rolls out the extra funding he is promising to try to improve this situation?

[Steve Brine]

As I said, councils have access to a total of just over £9.25 billion more in dedicated funding for social care over the next three years as a result of measures introduced by this Government since 2015. That is enough to increase social care spending in real terms. And let me just put this on the record for the House: the UK spends more as a share of GDP on long-term care than other industrialised countries, including much-vaunted Germany, Canada and the United States.

Social Care (Liverpool)

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on obtaining this crucial and timely debate. She set out in full and with great clarity the situation facing Liverpool and other local authorities in the city region, as the council seeks to set a lawful budget while desperately trying to keep going the public services on which so many of our constituents depend. She set out in great detail and with pertinent facts and figures many of the things that I was going to say about Liverpool. I endorse her speech fully—it was excellent.

Liverpool has had £420 million cut from the city budget since the Lib Dem-Tory coalition imposed cuts in 2010. There has also been the never-ending slashing of public services provision by this Government and their predecessor, and another £90 million has to be found. To illustrate that, Liverpool raised £147 million in council tax in the last financial year, but it spent £151 million on adult social care. I will emphasise that: Liverpool is having to spend more on adult social care alone than it can raise in council tax.

My hon. Friend set out some of the other concerns and problems. The demand for social care assessments is rising. Despite the cuts she described to the money that can be spent on adult social care, the demand for help of those depleted services from our citizens and constituents has increased by 15%. The demand for social care assessments in Liverpool has gone up from 18,000 a year in 2020 to 21,000 a year now. As she set out, Liverpool supports 9,000 people annually to some degree with a care package at home. That is fewer than half of the people who have asked to be assessed, so it is clear that only those with the highest needs get help, and they may well not get a level of support from which they benefit and which might keep them out of more acute services for longer with a better quality of life.

Liverpool City Council announced in its budget proposal that it intends to increase council tax. It will of course do so reluctantly, because many of our fellow citizens will find it difficult to afford an increase, but that course of action must be taken. I say in all sincerity to the Minister that it is not credible to claim that the shortfall that results from resources being cut by 70% can be made up by efficiency savings. I could not lose 70% of my resources and make up the difference in efficiency savings.

My constituency of Garston and Halewood also covers part of the Knowsley metropolitan borough, which is a smaller authority but, thanks to this Government and the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government that preceded it, it faces financial challenges that are just as severe. Its revenue is currently £148 million. It has had to make cuts of £86 million since 2010 and will have to find a further £17 million over the next three years. That is a total loss for a small authority of more than £100 million. Both Liverpool and Knowsley are among the top five hardest hit local authorities. Knowsley’s income will have gone down by 56% by the end of this process.

Knowsley raised £43.2 million in council tax in the last financial year, yet it spent £47.1 million on adult social care alone. Are we seeing a pattern here? Just like Liverpool, Knowsley had to spend more on adult social care alone than it was able to raise in council tax this year. The pressures on the social care budget are huge. Because the population is ageing and people are living for longer—something we should all celebrate—Knowsley expects to face additional pressures of £10 million in the next three years for adult social care alone.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the picture she paints is grim, particularly for Knowsley? Does she, like me, envisage a time in the not-too-distant future when Knowsley simply will not be able to meet its legal responsibilities unless additional funds are found to ensure that adult social care is available?

[Maria Eagle]

I well understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Indeed, the fear is that it will simply be impossible. Knowsley has not had 56% of its statutory obligations removed—just 56% of the money with which it is supposed to meet them. Knowsley, too, is looking at a council tax increase of 4.99%, with 3% ring-fenced for adult social care. This will be the first time that it has increased council tax in five years, and it will do so reluctantly, but that will generate just £1.9 million a year—a total of £3.8 million over the three-year period. That will pay for only just over a third of the pressures that are expected in adult social care alone.

Some additional money will come through the improved better care fund, and there will be one-off allocations—albeit of less than £1 million—through the adult social care fund, but none of that will meet the pressures that are apparent now. I say again to the Minister in all sincerity that one-off payments cannot deal with permanent pressures that are increasing relentlessly day by day when budgets have been cut so drastically.

Unfortunately, Government actions elsewhere mean that those pressures could easily increase rather than decrease because of what is happing in the health service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned. Greater pressures on our NHS hospitals and acute services, which have financial problems, the Government’s never-ending austerity mania and real-terms reductions in resources for the NHS over the next few years mean that our NHS services, too, are under enormous pressure. That is where the Merseyside and Cheshire sustainability and transformation plan comes in, but that aims to offset £908 million of financial pressures on the local NHS. It has changed from something that was welcome as a way of improving co-operation and transforming our services into something that is simply about saving money over the next few years. I am afraid that that will not make things easier.

There has been a lack of consultation between the STP leaders and the councils. Neither of the councils that I have mentioned feels like they have been consulted at all about the proposals that are supposed to be going ahead for the NHS, despite the fact that they will face pressure from hospitals that want to get people back into the community—but to what? There is ever-decreasing resource in the community to help look after them.

Tomorrow’s Budget is a chance for the Chancellor to tackle some of those problems with vigour. We hope that he will, but if the Government’s briefing in the newspapers is to be believed, it looks like he will not. It is reported that he will announce an emergency fund of £1.3 billion to tackle the social care crisis. That is only half of the £2.6 billion that the Local Government Association estimates the spending gap will reach by 2020, and it appears that the Chancellor will direct it at schemes that aim to tackle bed-blocking. Knowsley will not benefit from such money, because it has tackled that problem already. Indeed, the Minister always prays Knowsley in aid when he tries to say that bed-blocking is not a problem in some authorities. Knowsley has lost 56% of its resource, and it now looks like it will be punished for being efficient while less efficient local authorities get a slice of the money that the Chancellor will give out tomorrow.

Apparently, the Chancellor will also establish another long-term review of social care funding. Although that is welcome, because this needs to be tackled in the end as a proper long-term policy issue, it will not tackle the problems that Liverpool and Knowsley face now. I must also observe that both Governments the Minister has been a member of have done the same, and they simply ignored the proposals that ended up emerging. The shadow Cabinet of which he was a prominent member before 2010 sabotaged the attempts by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to have cross-party talks about a solution seven years ago for a cheap election poster alleging that Labour was proposing a death tax. So we will see.

Meanwhile, the social care crisis in Liverpool and Knowsley worsens and the Government simply pass the buck, play politics and offer zero leadership—I am afraid we have come to expect that from them. Those who lose out are the elderly and the vulnerable, who rely most on the services that this Government’s actions decimate the most.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

Indeed. On Thursday, I am going to Liverpool to give a talk at a care conference. I would be very happy during that visit to come along and talk to the council about some of the issues raised here today. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, I am sure that the Government can learn from Liverpool. Frankly, we can all learn from each other. When I went to Whiston hospital and saw discharges to St Helens and to Liverpool, I saw some wonderful things happening there. Anyway, the offer stands.

[Maria Eagle]

I am sure that all councils in Merseyside would be happy—I know that Knowsley would—to see the Minister on Thursday if he has a bit of spare time. Does he agree that it will be a bit of a blow if the Chancellor’s reported actions tomorrow reward those with a poorer record with smaller cuts to their resources than Knowsley’s? Knowsley has a good record on delayed discharges, but according to the formulation listed in some of today’s newspapers, it will end up getting very little, if anything.

[David Mowat]

I thought that I had said that I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be wrong to punish those that are doing better. She mentioned that Knowsley is one of the stronger councils in that regard; St Helens is even stronger. It would be completely wrong if that were the basis of the allocation. Frankly, that is not my understanding.

I want to talk a little about what the Government plan to do on social care. Part of that involves recognising the pressures that exist. One thing that we get into quickly in social care discussions is a debate about adult social care and frail people—people on the borderline between being ill and being old. If they are ill, they are in hospital under the NHS, and if they are not, they are old, and care is either means-tested or provided by the council. That is a difficult area.

One third of the pressure on councils such as Liverpool arises not from older people but from people with severe learning difficulties, autism and disabilities more generally. Over the past decade, thankfully, the health inequality from which that cohort suffers has decreased considerably, and the life expectancy of people in those categories has increased. The cost to local authorities is clearly severe. In addition, the Government are determined to press ahead with a programme called Transforming Care, which came out of the Winterbourne View case. Too many people with severe learning difficulties were in institutions and long-term hospitals, with all that goes with that. We are moving them into communities with the help of local authorities. There is a plan to move some 3,000 people out of institutions—places hopefully much better than Winterbourne View—and into care. All of that creates pressures of the sort that we have been hearing about in this debate, but that does not mean that it is not the right thing to do.

Defibrillators in Public Areas

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Defibrillators save lives. That is the truth that drives the work of the Oliver King Foundation, a charity that campaigns to ensure that defibrillators are available in public places and that people are trained to use them. Every year, ambulance services in the UK treat about 30,000 people for a non-hospital cardiac arrest, but fewer than 10% of them survive—fewer than one in 10. Of the average 82 people who suffer cardiac arrest outside hospital every day in the UK, just eight live.

Cardio pulmonary resuscitation is often championed as the best way to treat cardiac arrest before the emergency services arrive. Indeed, in some cases it can double the likelihood of survival. But even then the chances of resuscitation are still as low as 20%, and that is only in some cases. Clearly CPR alone is not enough.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

A little over a year ago, on 7 December 2015, my 28-year-old son had a cardiac arrest. He is one of the few lucky ones who got to hospital in time and survived. He has his own defibrillator, but does the hon. Lady agree that, in conjunction with defibrillator training, it is incredibly important that people are trained in CPR? In my son’s case, his girlfriend was trained in CPR and saw him through the process until the paramedics arrived.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman has had a frightening experience in his family, and also learnt the incredible importance of not only having defibrillators available, but having people who know how to use them. I could hardly better his family’s example of how important that is.

A study by the British Heart Foundation found that for every single minute without defibrillation, chances of survival fall by between 7% and 10%. The Care Quality Commission sets a response target of eight minutes for emergency ambulance services, but we know that ambulances cannot possibly arrive within that time in every case. Even if they did, the chances of survival without immediate defibrillation and CPR will have already plummeted to 20% or lower. Access to a defibrillator can therefore make a huge difference. If cardiac arrest is recognised, basic first aid is given, 999 is called and CPR is applied, in combination with rapid and effective defibrillation, the chances of survival can exceed 50%. In fact, in some cases it can be as high as 80%. However, immediate action is vital. A defibrillator must be at hand for those survival rates to be realised.

Three people who know that better than most are my constituents Mark, Joanne and Ben King. In 2011, Mark and Joanne King lost their son Oliver, and Ben lost his brother. Oliver tragically died following a sudden cardiac arrest while racing in, and winning, a school swimming competition. He was just 12 years old. He had a hidden heart condition, and without access to a defibrillator at school his chances of survival on that day were dramatically reduced. Had he lived, this Saturday would have been his 18th birthday.

I never met Oliver, but I have been struck by talking to those who knew him well. He was clearly a very happy and popular boy, judging by the tributes that poured in from those who knew him following the shock of that terrible day. He was known as a big character at King David High School. His teachers recall his “uncompromising zest for life” and how he was loved and respected by boys and girls and teachers alike. His best friend David recalls Oliver’s charm and how it was deployed on more than one occasion to get them out of a tricky situation. This year is particularly difficult for David, as he will be celebrating the milestone of turning 18 without his best friend.

Everyone mentions Oliver’s love of football—he was a staunch Evertonian. His family and friends all recall his great talent and potential on the pitch. One of his teachers describes him as

“a sportsman at heart and a natural at whatever he turned his hand to”.

Above all, Oliver was caring, loving and incredibly close to his family:

“family was everything to Oliver.”

It goes without saying that Oliver’s death left many who knew and loved him with a great sense of loss. His family and friends are sadly not alone in going through this terrible ordeal. As well as the thousands of people who die every year following sudden cardiac arrest, there are thousands more who are now faced with the agonising reality of living without their loved one.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing this important subject to the House and for her good fortune in having, potentially, three and a half hours in which to debate it. She has given an emotional case of somebody for whom, for the sake of a relatively simple and inexpensive bit of kit, the outcome might have been different. Does she agree that public buildings—certainly places such as schools—should automatically be fitted with a defibrillator?

Will the hon. Lady pay tribute to Sompting Big Local in my constituency, which has a lottery grant for the enhancement of the village? Its first priority was to install four defibrillators in every corner of the village, including one outside the local pharmacy, because it saw it as a worthwhile thing to do. Many other people have imaginatively used things such as redundant telephone boxes by replacing them with defibrillators as an obvious help point for local people. Should not we just be doing those things automatically?

[Maria Eagle]

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. He has set out an example from his constituency. Around the country, there are many ways in which communities are starting to ensure that they have access to defibrillators so that, if needed, they are there. I welcome that. We should try to ensure that defibrillators are available throughout our land—up and down, north and south, and east and west. What happened to Oliver is not as rare as we might hope. In the UK, some 270 young people tragically die every year of sudden cardiac arrest while at school. That furthers the hon. Gentleman’s point that having defibrillators routinely available in schools seems to be a no-brainer.

In 2012, Oliver’s parents, Mark and Joanne, set up the Oliver King Foundation in memory of their son. It aims to raise awareness of the conditions that lead to sudden cardiac arrest, which is vital as the family did not know that Oliver had any condition that might have led to what happened. If they had known, probably with the diagnosis of a simple electrocardiogram test, they may well have been able to take steps that could have avoided what happened. Other aims of the foundation are to purchase and place defibrillators in schools and sports centres, to train staff how to use them and to hold screening events to enable simple, painless ECG testing to help diagnose such conditions and ensure that what happened to Oliver does not happen to the children of other families.

Mark and Joanne have done an incredible job. Their aim is simple: to ensure that no more families have to go through what they did, knowing that the death of a son, daughter, mother, father or friend may have been prevented. They campaign tirelessly and effectively to ensure that every school in the country is equipped with an automated external defibrillator. They have the support of more than 200 hon. and right hon. Members of this House, across parties.

Automated external defibrillators are specifically designed for use by non-medically trained people. They are remarkable, life-saving machines that are not difficult to use. The machine will apply an electrical pulse only when it detects an irregular heart rate and it talks the user through the process, step by step. However, at about £1,200, AEDs are not cheap and, even if provided, some people are often afraid of using them. As a result, many schools and high-risk public areas in the UK are still not equipped with them. As a direct result of the work of the Oliver King Foundation, more than 800 schools and public places now have this life-saving kit and people who are confident to use it. In Liverpool, Oliver’s home city, not a single school is now without one thanks to the work of the foundation and Liverpool City Council.

The foundation has also managed to train 15,000 people around the country in how to use an AED, thus making sure that in sudden difficult circumstances the confidence is there to use this life-saving kit. As a direct result, 11 lives have been saved that would otherwise have been lost, including an elderly gentleman who suffered a heart attack at his local gym. Thanks to the staff’s quick thinking and use of the gym’s defibrillator, he was sat up and talking by the time the emergency services arrived. In Woolton in my constituency, where Oliver used to live, an AED provided by the foundation was deployed three times this December alone. If the defibrillator is available and training is provided, people will use one: it is as simple as that.

However, we cannot and should not be reliant on charities to do all the heavy lifting and work in this policy area. In November, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) introduced the Defibrillators (Availability) Bill under the 10-minute rule procedure, with the purpose being to

“increase the rates of survival rates from non-hospital cardiac arrests across the UK”.

Its objective is basically to do for the nation what the OK Foundation has done for Liverpool and is continuing to do in its work in other places: providing defibrillators in public places and training people to use them.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware of the impact that these defibrillators have in cardiac ambulances. When I qualified, an ambulance just picked someone up and took them to a hospital, but the big, boxy ambulances have more equipment in them than was in a casualty unit in those days. Even in professional hands, this technology has transformed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very useful information, from her own experience as a doctor. It is important that the availability of this kit is widened across our society in order to save lives.

Current legislation surrounding public access to defibrillators is practically non-existent. Last year, the Government produced a guide for schools recommending the purchase of AEDs. While I welcome that move to highlight the issue, the Government should do more. Will the Minister undertake to meet Mark and Joanne and the OK Foundation to discuss a realistic programme of providing AEDs in public places and training for people such that they feel confident to use them? Will he facilitate a meeting with the Prime Minister? I know that the OK Foundation would welcome an opportunity to argue its case at the highest possible level of Government.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an important issue in this Adjournment debate. I, too, pay tribute to the Oliver King Foundation for all its hard work. This is one of those rare occasions when there is cross-party agreement. We agree on the need for these defibrillators, but the Bill that will come here for its Second Reading on 27 January is unlikely to make progress simply because of its nature as a ten-minute rule Bill. Does she agree that it would be good if the Government adopted the Bill, because this procedure does save lives, it is relatively cheap to introduce, and it would make a difference to young people? As she eloquently explained, 12 young lives are lost each week through these incidents.

[Maria Eagle]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward her Bill. Yes, it was done under the 10-minute rule procedure, but it is now there, and I echo her call for the Government to adopt it. As she realistically observed, the only reason it may not progress in this Session is that there is no time given its position on the list for private Member’s Bill Fridays. The Government could transform that in an instant by taking on board aspects of the Bill—or the whole Bill, preferably—and putting them into some of their own legislation. The Minister might have something to say about that.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the eloquent and forceful speech she is making. She has already paid tribute to the King family. May I add my tribute to them for their great dignity and the constructive way in which they have taken the issue forward? I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) that the ten-minute rule Bill has virtually no chance of getting on to the statute book, but the Government could, if they had a mind to, adopt it and turn it into a Government Bill. Of course, if it is defective in any way, it could be amended, but nevertheless the spirit of it could be carried forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct on both those things. I know that he knows the King family, as many of us on Merseyside do. Many colleagues from across the House have met either the family or the campaigners associated with the Oliver King Foundation, which does a stunning job of getting across its campaigning efforts and its ask to Members across the House.

Losing Oliver was devastating for Mark, Joanne and Ben, and for Oliver’s friends and his local community. Who knows what he would have been capable of achieving, had he lived? It would have been something remarkable, I have no doubt, given the way in which he had started off in life.

I would like to finish by saying how much I admire the positive and successful way in which Oliver King’s family and friends have channelled their grief into ensuring that no other family has to endure what they did. They have done such good work in Liverpool and elsewhere, and they are moving on to other places to start installing AEDs in schools, sports centres and other public places. Only the Government can help them to achieve their goal nationwide, and I very much hope that the Minister, in his reply, will want to take the opportunity to announce a Government initiative to make that dream a reality. I think it would be a fitting tribute to Oliver King.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat]

I accept that. Also, a number of sports governing bodies offer screening for people who participate in their sports, but of course that is not the national screening of all 12 to 39-year-olds, which was the issue that was looked at.

Let me finish by reiterating my willingness to meet the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, other Members and people from the Oliver King Foundation.

[Maria Eagle]

I conveyed a request for the Prime Minister to meet the Oliver King Foundation and Oliver’s parents. Could the Minister help me to facilitate that?

[David Mowat]

I can do many things, but I cannot answer for the Prime Minister. I think I am right in saying that those people met the Secretary of State a couple of years ago. Perhaps when we meet, however, they can start at the bottom end of the food chain before working their way upwards.

When the Government invest in any aspect of health, whether it be cancer drugs or access to GPs, efficacy and cost-effectiveness must be evaluated. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence uses the criterion “quality-adjusted life years”. Investment in defibrillators must be judged against investment in other necessities, such as cancer drugs, but it is clear from what has been said in a debate that has attracted interest on both sides of the House and the border that defibrillators save money as we start to save lives. The Government accept that, and I want us to make progress in this regard.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Care Funding

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call an Eagle—Maria Eagle.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Liverpool City Council has seen £330 million cut from its budget since 2010—58% of all its money. A further £90 million has to be found by 2020. In those circumstances, how will it be possible for the council to increase, as we all wish it could, the money it spends on adult social services, when it already spends more on them— £146 million—than it can raise in council tax?

[David Mowat]

It is not my role to lecture Liverpool City Council on how to deliver adult social care. I make the point, though, that Knowsley and St Helens, which are very close to Liverpool, have virtually no delayed transfers of care, and so possibly some best-practice sharing would be in order.