Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Baroness Jowell’s successor in her parliamentary seat speaks very powerfully and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the role of King’s in this research. King’s has been developing this treatment for years, and as a result of its work, it can now be rolled out nationally. It is a hospital that, as the hon. Lady says, needs to address some of its local challenges, but we should not take away from some of the globally cutting-edge work that it does and the positive impact it has: potentially 2,000 people alive each year who would otherwise die. That is testament to the importance of this research.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The first person I know who had a brain tumour and cancer and died was John Davies, who had been the MP for Knutsford shortly after I was first elected.

The NHS website is very good about the possible symptoms of brain tumours. May I strongly recommend that everyone who thinks they may have a worry consult their medical practitioners so that either they can be cleared or they can get early treatment, and is it not right that early diagnosis is the best way forward for those who may have the condition?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that: early diagnosis is critical to improving the proportion of people who survive cancers, because of course it is easier to treat people if diagnosis is early. We are reviewing all cancer screening programmes because they are not working well enough; the National Audit Office set that out in some detail recently, and we accept those findings. We want to get early diagnosis and screening right, and it is a top priority for the new Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), to make sure we do so that more people can survive.

Government Mandate for the NHS

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

There are all sorts of lines I could follow that with, Mr Speaker.

It is clear that it is this side of the House that is putting in the funding to make sure that the NHS can deliver for the patients, staff and families.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Most of us will remember that the NHS Confederation said four years ago that it wanted

“a manageable number of objectives, which…focus on long-term outcomes for patients and populations rather than measures of how services are delivered”—

and—

“encourage collective responsibility for patient outcomes rather than silo working – particularly the expected outcomes from integrated care”.

Most people in the NHS will welcome the short delay if the result is that it makes it more possible for them to achieve the objective of the NHS, which is serving patients together.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

We now have an opportunity to deliver reforms that will provide quicker and fuller access to protections for the 125,000 people who are not currently receiving them. That is 125,000 vulnerable people without the legal protection that they deserve, whose families do not have peace of mind, and whose care providers have no legal cover for supporting them. We now have an opportunity to rectify this situation.

In February, the other place considered the 56 amendments made to the Bill by the House of Commons, the vast majority of which were agreed with. However, the Lords tabled alternatives to two of the Commons amendments, and they are the focus of our discussions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister has rightly pointed out that the Bill will provide a great advantage to those who are directly affected. I do not want to be a total patsy for my local authority, but will she explain what the benefit will be for local authorities, which are responsible for trying to protect people’s welfare and safety?

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This issue has been a huge burden for local authorities: they have had to carry out multiple deprivation of liberty safeguards often for the same people and often when those people move from one setting to another. That involves a huge amount of bureaucracy and does not offer any better protection for the individuals concerned. The new service will enable local authorities to do this in a much more streamlined and efficient way. It will save them money and, at the same time, offer better protection for the individuals about whom we all care.

Lords amendment 1B was tabled by Baroness Tyler of Enfield to set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty positively, rather than by using the exclusionary approach set out by the Government. Noble lords are, of course, absolutely right to want to ensure that any definition is understood by people and practitioners. However, a positive definition of a deprivation of liberty is likely to be subject to a legal challenge as article 5 case law evolves, and it would become unfit for purpose incredibly quickly. This is a view not only shared by the Government, but highlighted beautifully in the other place by the esteemed legal experts Lord Mackay and Lord Hope.

Lords amendment 1B does not link the definition of a deprivation of liberty to article 5 of the European convention on human rights, so creating a risk of the definition set out in statute diverging from the convention. This would mean that people who fall outside Parliament’s concept of deprivation of liberty but within the article 5 definition could not have their deprivation of liberty authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For those people, only the High Court would be available to authorise such a deprivation of liberty, which, in turn, would give rise to excessive delays in accessing vital safeguards.

That is precisely the situation that this piece of legislation looks to address—there are already too many people subject to delays when accessing safeguards, and we cannot introduce a provision that would further risk this.

Given that the Government have these concerns, we cannot agree with the noble lords in their amendment 1B. However, we know that concerns in the other place are reflected by many across the sector and we have taken that on board. We have listened carefully to the views of MPs, peers and other stakeholders and decided not to insist on amendment 1. Instead, I propose that the meaning of a deprivation of liberty will still be as defined under article 5 of the convention, as it is under section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act, but there will not be a clarification of the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in the Bill. The Bill will work alongside the rest of the Mental Capacity Act, so it does not impact on the existing definition.

I reassure the House that the Government are still absolutely committed to providing clarification regarding the meaning of a deprivation of liberty for both people and practitioners. We will use the code of practice to lay out in very clear terms and provide details of when a deprivation of liberty is and is not occurring, and this guidance will reflect existing case law. We will set out the meaning of a deprivation of liberty in a positive framing and in a way that is clearer for people and practitioners. We will also include case studies in the code to help bring this to life. Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1B will prescribe that the code of practice must contain guidance on what kind of arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty.

NHS Long-Term Plan

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

With respect, this is a huge increase in NHS funding, the like of which I am not aware that the Liberal Democrats were proposing at the last election. Although I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the settlement, for him to stand up and say that it is not enough is not a satisfactory response. As he knows, we have actually put our money where our mouth is and demonstrated that we are committed to the NHS, with one of the biggest single injections of cash in the history of the NHS.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am glad that both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have welcomed the fact that all parties have supported the health service: the Liberals first with Christopher Addison, for whom my father once worked, in 1919; Henry Willink, a Conservative member of the coalition Government, in 1944; and Aneurin Bevan, who made some changes and nationalised the hospitals, rather than the family doctors. Both the resources and the reform are needed, and future generations will be grateful to this Government—hopefully with the support of other parties—for taking this forward.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. If there is ever a memorial built to Sir Henry Willink for his role in the White Paper that critically announced to this House that we were going to have a national health service, my hon. Friend should certainly be the person to unveil it because he has done a huge amount to make the point that, although Nye Bevan’s role was absolutely critical, other people in other parties also played a vital role.

NHS 70th Anniversary

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this important celebratory debate.

On 5 July this year we will mark 70 years of the NHS across the whole of the United Kingdom. Although now a devolved matter, the same core principle of safe, effective, person-centred care applies and it remains free at the point of delivery throughout the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that, no matter where we live on these islands, the NHS is the British institution most loved and valued by the public.

For the past seven decades, millions in the United Kingdom have known that they can rely on the NHS in their hour of need, to treat them when they are sick or injured and help them keep fit and healthy—most importantly, without discrimination. That principle has worked well for 70 years because of the dedication of generations of hard-working NHS staff. In this anniversary year, it is only right that we should thank all NHS staff, past and present, in Scotland and across the United Kingdom for their dedication and service. Mr Hosie, I should have declared an interest. I have two daughters who are nursing professionals in NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

This is indeed a time to reflect on the progress that the NHS has made since 1948 and consider what steps we should take over the next seven decades to ensure that the national health service continues to provide the best possible service to the British public, who very much rely on it.

In 1948, the newly created NHS was more concerned with childhood malnutrition than with obesity. Penicillin, discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming, physician and Nobel prize winner, who was born in Ayrshire in Scotland in 1881, was a relatively new and revolutionary treatment. Polio, tuberculosis and rickets were of major concern as opposed to dementia, the diabetes that was mentioned earlier, and the cancer conditions experienced today.

It is worth noting the progress that the NHS and society in general have made in recent years in recognising the need for improved mental health provision. Health is health, whether we categorise it as mental or physical. The UK Government’s introduction of parity between mental and physical health was a vital and important step forward, and I am glad that the Scottish Government have followed suit.

As our population ages—I fall into that category—and our society changes, the challenges that the NHS faces in health promotion and health and wellbeing will continue to evolve. We need an NHS that is adaptable and committed to embracing new technologies such as genomics wherever possible, and it must be well resourced to meet the increase in demand. I mentioned earlier the dedication of the staff, but it is crucial that there are enough skilled staff to meet today’s demanding and changing workload. Sadly, today’s national health service as a whole has vacancies and challenges in recruiting across the spectrum, whether nurses, allied health professionals or medics. There are too many gaps in the system, which has led to significant funds being paid on overtime and expensive agency nurses. We need to resolve the long-standing UK-wide conundrum of delayed discharges from acute care beds by ensuring that patients are cared for safely in the most appropriate, supported environment.

Over the past 70 years the NHS has been a great success based on a great principle. We are living longer and healthier lives as a result. May I commend the Labour Government who, 70 years ago, in the dark days of a post-war Britain, had the courage and foresight to create the national health service, and also successive Governments, including, dare I say, Conservative Governments, who have supported the service that we all continue to value so much?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

If I were able to make a speech, which I cannot, I would talk about public health even before the health service. However, let me remind everyone that on the creation of the national health service, in January 1944, Henry Willink, a Conservative Minister in the coalition Government, held up the first White Paper that said, “national health service”.

HPV Vaccination for Boys

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on his address and on securing this debate. We have to remember two things. First, celibacy is about the only thing we cannot inherit from our parents. Sex may be adopted or forced on you, but it cannot be inherited, unless one is conceived in a glass dish, which most of us were not. Secondly, HPV is a vector. It goes from male to female and from female to male. If I was to alter my hon. Friend’s speech, I would say that the female, from whom the male may get the virus, probably got it from a male in the first place. We have to regard this as an almost endless chain of sexual engagement and the vector going on.

When I was involved in the HPV issue, it was to try to get the Government to bring in genital warts protection for females and to have that added to the cervical cancer vaccination. As it happened, the pharmaceutical company in the town I represent was making the vaccination that did not include it. Somebody came along and pointed out that this might mean a loss of trade for the particular business. I explained that the role and responsibility of a Member of Parliament—of the Government also—is not to put their constituency interest first, but to put the national interest first. My hon. Friend the Minister will not need any reminding that public health first means prevention of illness, then curing illness and then caring for those who cannot be cured. This issue is about prevention. The introductory speech should convince those behind the Minister to get things moving.

The arguments for delaying the addition of the HPV protection to the cervical cancer protection were scandalous. Adding to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, if we are looking for herd immunity, we should note that, as has been discovered in Australia, it comes twice as fast if young males are offered the protection at the same time as young females. There is the extreme case of those males who only have sex with males—the herd immunity will not get through to them, and that leads to 400 avoidable deaths a year.

The key point is to get herd immunity for everyone far faster. It seems to me blindingly obvious, in medical terms, public terms and cost terms, that the sooner that happens, the better. If there is some problem about the run-on of the existing contract only being for a certain number, I say to the Minister that no pharmaceutical company that I know supplying the national health service would object to having its order doubled, so that young males were included with young females.

We look forward to hearing that the Minister is persuaded and that he will give a strong nudge to the Joint Committee. We look forward, in time, to being able to congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving—with Government, the medical profession, the nursing profession and the affected communities—this progress, which has been too long delayed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine]

Not wishing to mislead the House, my honest answer is that I am not aware of that paper. Whether my officials are aware of it is another matter—I will ask them. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be shy about putting a copy in my hand after the debate.

The good news is that HPV vaccination of girls also provides some—I emphasise “some”—indirect protection for boys. When the vaccination uptake rates are high, as they are in England, there are fewer HPV infections in heterosexual males, because the spread of HPV infection between girls and boys is reduced. There is evidence to back that up; it is not just words. For instance, diagnosis of first-episode genital warts in young heterosexual men between the ages of 15 and 17 declined by 62% between 2009 and 2016. That suggests that there is some—again, I emphasise “some”—herd protection from the existing HPV vaccination programme. However, that is not the start of the story, and neither is it the end, and I have to put it on the record that nobody in Government has ever said that it was. Nevertheless, I take the points that have been made today about herd immunity; it is only part of the story.

Of course, it will take much longer to see the impact that the girls programme has on HPV-related cancers, but we should not wait for those results before considering whether more needs to be done now for boys. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, this is a slow-burn problem.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It is just a matter of pure mathematics. If 100%, or nearly 100%, of any age cohort —male and female—gets the vaccination, the herd immunity develops much faster than just relying on vaccinating up to 50% of that cohort.

[Steve Brine]

I think that my hon. Friend is stating facts, and I know that the JCVI officials who are here today will have heard him.

The JCVI keeps all vaccination programmes under review, as it should, and it keeps Ministers informed of any reviews. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet is aware, given the increasing evidence about the link between HPV infection and oral, throat, anal and penile cancers, alongside the incidence of genital warts, the JCVI has considered whether HPV vaccination is now needed for males.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made about the surprise about penile cancer. He has more experience of the subject than I do, but it is not a surprise to me. I work with a very good charity called Orchid Cancer, some of whose staff attend my cancer roundtable regularly. It deals with male cancers and is trying to raise awareness of penile cancer as a challenge in society today. It is an issue that is difficult for society, let alone for men, to talk about. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said today.

The JCVI considered its current piece of work in two parts: first, whether the HPV vaccination should be introduced for men who have sex with men—MSM—and secondly, whether it should be introduced for adolescent boys. MSM, as we know, are a group at high risk of HPV infection. Unlike heterosexual men, of course, they are unlikely to receive much, if any, indirect protection from the HPV vaccination programme for girls. The JCVI advised us that a targeted HPV vaccination programme should be introduced for MSM up to the age of 45 who attend genitourinary medicine clinics or HIV clinics. Following a successful pilot in 42 clinics that was led by Public Health England, we announced in February that the programme would roll out across the country from April, and it is now being rolled out. That programme is welcome, but again I fully appreciate that it is not the start and it is certainly not the end of the story, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West set out in her very coherent remarks.

Let me turn to the issue of adolescent boys. Of the non-cervical HPV-associated cancers, not all cases are caused by HPV—indeed, the percentage of cases that are attributable to HPV is widely debated. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet mentioned The Swallows, which I do not have much contact with, although I have heard of it. I passed a note to my officials asking them to get in touch with the charity as a result of this debate, so it should look out for that. For head and neck cancers, alcohol is an important risk factor to take into account, but HPV does play a role, and that is why the JCVI is considering whether vaccination for boys should be introduced.

The JCVI issued interim advice on HPV last July. As Members know, that was subject to consultation. It is reviewing the evidence ahead of finalising its advice to Ministers. Its members are the experts, and they are best placed to consider the evidence and provide advice to Ministers. That is the system that Parliament has mandated. Parliament could change it, but that is our system.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

When the Minister sends a report of this debate to the JCVI, it might be worth him respectfully saying that some of us here are aware of how long it took it to agree to bring in HPV protection even for females. It might want to consider whether postponing that decision was right or wrong. In my view, it was wrong. The people at the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV knew that it was wrong, and it took an awfully long time for them to change their minds. Can we please ask them respectfully not to make the same mistake again?

[Steve Brine]

Those people are nearer to my hon. Friend than he knows, and they will have heard his point.

In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet asked the JCVI to take the long view, and I hope that I can reassure him somewhat on that point. Some examples of what the JCVI is taking into account in its considerations include: the projected future number of HPV cancers resulting from the current incidence of HPV infection; the potential savings as a result of preventing future cancers, which a number of Members have mentioned; the potential savings from preventing genital warts; and, crucially for my hon. Friend’s point, the long-term impact of HPV infection up to 100 years into the future, which will outlive even him.

The JCVI’s interim advice indicated that to vaccinate boys would be

“highly unlikely to be cost-effective in the UK, where uptake in adolescent girls is consistently high”.

It is true that the UK has achieved high uptake for the girls HPV immunisation programme for the past 10 years. In 2016-17, 83.1% of girls completed the current two-dose course, including the daughter of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I have two young children—one of each—and of course those of us who are parents want what is best for our children. Somehow arguments about cost-effectiveness do not feel right. Cost-effectiveness is important, however, because it is about how to fairly, consistently and robustly assess which interventions and treatments should be funded in what we must remember is a publicly funded health system. We need to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and deliver the most health benefit possible to all patients. That is our system.

Contaminated Blood

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I understand the right hon. Lady’s point and I repeat that the Cabinet Office is closely involved with this at this stage. I think she would consider it most remiss of me were I not to take a close interest as this consultation is taken forward. I cannot say this enough: it is essential that the way in which the inquiry is established inspires confidence in the people affected, and that is what we are trying to achieve through the consultation. As I say, we want to hear from them and we are completely open-minded as to which Department takes responsibility. For now, I want to have those conversations because I want to understand their concerns with what has happened with the Department of Health. As a Minister, I need to give that challenge.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The letter from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) started by expressing gratitude to the Government for the progress made so far. That would have been welcome decades ago, but it is right to acknowledge it now. The letter included three practical points that it put perhaps slightly better than the shadow Minister. The machinery of government cannot work overnight normally and the questions and answers today will help the Government and the Prime Minister decide whether the right solution is, as has been suggested, having another Department or the Cabinet Office take on the consultation with the Department of Health helping as far as it can. The one point for the Department of Health now is whether it can guarantee the third point in the hon. Lady’s letter, which is that no records will be destroyed and that they will all be available to the inquiry.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. Let me reiterate that we have made many documents available in public, all published, and I can give him every assurance that nothing will be destroyed. Having now taken the decision to hold an inquiry, we must get it right. I am happy to hear from hon. Members at any time if they have any specific concerns about whether they think evidence is being withheld, so that I can satisfy myself that that is not the case.

Contaminated Blood

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend has put her finger on the point. With Hillsborough, when we finally got to match up documents held at a local level with those held at the national level, the full picture began to emerge. It is my contention that exactly the same would emerge here. The direct examples of a cover-up that I am about to give, relating to individual cases, would then be put together with what we know about documents held—or, indeed, not held, which itself implies wrongdoing—at a national level. In the end, it is the putting together of that picture that gives people the truth and allows them to understand how this happened. I will come directly to that point later.

I will focus on three cases. I highlight them not because they are the only ones I have seen or been sent, but because I have met or spoken directly to the individuals concerned, have a high degree of confidence in the facts and believe that these cases are representative of many more. The first case is of a gentleman who does not want to be named. I will call him Stuart, but I do have his full details.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

One of the reasons why this has not taken off widely as a real campaign is that victims understandably do not want to advertise their condition to those around them. I pay tribute to those who have talked to Members of Parliament, even on a confidential basis, so that some of us have some ammunition.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There is a stigma related to HIV and hepatitis. People do not want to talk about it openly. Although I have drawn a parallel with Hillsborough—the hon. Gentleman was outstanding in his support for me on that issue—there are many differences, and one major difference is that, with Hillsborough, the event happened on one day, and everybody was watching it and can remember where they were when the pictures came through. This scandal was a silent one, which affected people in all parts of the country and all walks of life—not people from a similar place. These people were spread about and unable to organise in the same way the Hillsborough campaigners were. That is another reason why they have not been able to move things forward, and the reason the hon. Gentleman gave is true, too.

When Stuart was six years old, he was sent by Maidstone hospital to the Lewisham and Oxford haemophilia centres to have tests to see whether he had haemophilia. When he was seven, they wrote back and said that all the tests were normal and that he did not have a bleeding problem. When he was eight, he attended Maidstone hospital with a swollen knee—nothing more. It was not life threatening, and he had no bleeding problem associated with it.

Then, with no warning to Stuart or his parents, Maidstone hospital treated him with 12 transfusions of contaminated blood products over three days. According to his medical records later, that should not have happened. Then, in 1986, the hospital, unbeknownst to Stuart, carried out an HIV and a hepatitis B test on him. He was never tested for hepatitis C, even though his records show that a test was available at the time. He was not tested in 1989 or called back as other tests became available. He has all his medical records, but one thing is missing: the batch numbers for the contaminated blood products.

Stuart was eventually told he had a hepatitis C infection in—listen to this, Madam Deputy Speaker—January 2013. He was also told that it was too late for him to pursue a court case, despite the fact that legal experts said that what had happened to him was negligent and he firmly believes there has been a cover-up.

Let me move on to the case of a woman called Nicola Enstone-Jones. She wrote:

“As a female with haemophilia diagnosed in the ‘70s. From the age of 9 my parents spent years trying to find out what happened to me after receiving Factor VIII, this was in 1980…Dr’s denying anything was wrong with me, referring to me as having psychological problems, as there was nothing wrong with the treatment they gave.”

She says that that was not unusual for haemophiliacs growing up then. She goes on:

“It was when I was 24”—

24!—

“in 1995 that I asked a nurse if I’d ever been tested for Hepatitis C, as my mum had seen on the news about Haemophiliacs being diagnosed and dying from this new strain of Hepatitis, and all the signs and symptoms listed was me.

The nurse laughed at me and said ‘you won’t have that’; then came back with my medical notes and informed me I was positive to Hepatitis C from a test…done in 1991. A test I knew nothing about... like a true haemophiliac and after spending years of searching for answers I had suddenly found out why I had suffered health problems since childhood.”

However, it was only later, when Nicola was able to access her medical notes, that she found an entry for 1990, which she has drawn to my attention, and I have it in my hand. The notes say: “Discussed hepatitis C”. Nicola has told me directly that that never happened—it was never discussed with her in 1990. She found out for the first time in 1995.

This story actually gets quite a lot worse. Let me read out what Nicola goes on to say:

“Little did I know almost 19 years later I would be at a police station reporting what I”

believe

“to be a criminal act and a form of abuse on my own child, once again…Dr’s performing tests”

without consent,

“another well-known”

practice

“which Haemophiliacs are sadly used to.

I had found out in 2013 that my 9 year old haemophilic son had been tested for HIV and hepatitis’s and no doubt a whole host of other viruses and pathogens, just like I had been when I was younger. Given my daughter has a bleeding disorder too, there is no doubt in my mind she will have been tested...I found this out third hand, by chance in a letter which was another professional”

asking

“if my son needed treatment abroad. The letter stated ‘This 9 year old haemophilic has a factor VIII level of 10% and…has been tested for HIV and hepatitis…which he is negative to.’”

She had never been told about this or given consent for her son to be tested. She says:

“Surely this isn’t right, in this day and age”.

In my view, it is a criminal act to test a child without a parent’s knowledge.

Let me come on to the third case, which, in my view, is the most troubling of them all. It relates to a gentleman called Kenneth David Bullock—Ken Bullock. Ken was a very high-ranking civil engineer who worked around the world. In his later career, he spent time advising what was then called the Overseas Development Agency. He was a haemophiliac. Sadly, Ken died in 1998—a very traumatic death, unfortunately. Let me read from the letter that his widow, Hazel Bullock, sent to me a few weeks ago:

“I am so relieved to hear you are still committed to an active”

inquiry into

“the contaminated blood tragedy…Between the 15th November, 1983 and the 3rd December, 1983, my husband stopped being a Haemophiliac patient who had been infected with NonA-NonB type Hepatitis to being a clinical alcoholic…This accusation continued and escalated during the next fifteen years completely unknown to him, he was refused a liver transplant in 1998 and left to die still unaware of these appalling accusations. He did not drink alcohol.”

Mrs Bullock has examined her late husband’s medical notes in detail. Again, I have them here in my possession today. An entry in his notes from February 1983 says, “Acute Hepatitis”. Another from March says:

“NonA NonB Hepatitis which he probably obtained from Cryo-precipitate”—

the recognised treatment at the time. Again in 1983, the notes say:

“In view of his exposure to blood products a diagnosis of NonA NonB was made.”

However, it would seem at that point that all mention of blood products was to be stopped, very suddenly. Mrs Bullock says:

“They were never again to be found anywhere in my husband’s notes. From the 15th December, 1983 all the hospital records refer only to alcoholic damage to the liver. I have in my possession full copies of all the following notes.”

In December 1983, the notes say, “alcohol could be considered”; in 1994,

“likes a few beers at week-ends”;

in 1995, “alcohol related hepatic dysfunction”; in 1995 again, “clinical alcoholism”; and in 1996, “chronic high alcohol consumption.” In 1998, the year that Mr Bullock died, they say, “alcoholic cirrhosis.”

Mrs Bullock concludes her letter:

“My husband died on the 3rd October, 1998. At no time during this 15 years should alcohol have been mentioned. My husband’s rare and occasional glass of wine was minimal. He never drank beer or spirits. Alcohol was never a part of our lives and he had his last glass of wine on 18th June 1995, my 60th birthday. My husband died completely unaware of these accusations that have shocked family, friends and colleagues alike.”

Just as the evidence of amended police statements provided the thread that we eventually pulled to unravel the Hillsborough cover-up, so I believe the evidence that I have just provided must now become the trigger for a wider inquiry into establishing the truth about contaminated blood. There is a very disturbing echo of Hillsborough—is there not?—in what I have just said. People who were the victims of negligence by the state were suddenly the victims of smears perpetrated by those working on behalf of public bodies, particularly smears related to alcohol, suggesting that the disease that afflicted Mr Bullock’s liver was self-inflicted. That reminds me, of course, of the front-page newspaper stories that appeared straight after Hillsborough that alleged that Liverpool fans were drunk. It is a time-honoured tactic—is it not?—to deflect the blame from where it should be over to somewhere else.

It is of course possible that in each of the cases that I have mentioned the hospitals and clinicians concerned were acting on an individual basis to prevent their negligent practices from being known. I have to say, however, that I doubt that that was the case. My suspicion, as I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, is that there are documents held at a national level, either by the Government or by regulatory or professional bodies, that point to a more systematic effort to suppress the truth.

I actually have two documents in my possession—this will save the Minister and the Government time if they want to suggest that there are no such documents—and I want to put them on the official record. The first is a letter sent in January 1975 by Stanford University’s medical centre to the Blood Products Laboratory, which was the UK Government’s wholly owned blood products operation. The letter goes to great lengths warning about the risk of the new factor VIII products that were coming on to the market. The gentleman who wrote it, Mr Allen, said of one particular product that the

“source of blood is 100 percent from Skid-Row derelicts”.

He was writing to warn the British Government about the blood products that were being used.

The second document is from the Oxford Haemophilia Centre and it was sent in January 1982 to all haemophilia centre directors in England. It says of the new products coming on to the market:

“Although initial production batches may have been tested for infectivity by injecting them into chimpanzees it is unlikely that the manufacturers will be able to guarantee this form of quality control for all future batches. It is therefore very important to find out by studies in human beings to what extent the infectivity of the various concentrates has been reduced. The most clear cut way of doing this is by administering those concentrates to patients requiring treatment who have not been previously exposed to large pool concentrates.”

In other words, it is saying: let us find out whether there is “infectivity”—to use its word—in the products by using patients as guinea pigs, without regard for the consequences. That is proof, in my view, of negligence of a very serious kind.

That brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised earlier. When we read the warning from the Americans in 1975 about blood products being derived from blood that had been taken off convicts on skid row and the letter some seven years later in which the Oxford Haemophilia Centre stated that it was necessary to push on with trials—to find out whether the products were infectious by giving them to patients—we soon start to see that there was something here that needed to be hidden.

In addition, we must consider the fact that all the papers belonging to a Health Minister were, as I understand it, comprehensively destroyed under something called the 10-year rule. I have been a Minister, and I have never heard of the 10-year rule. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a new one on me. A Minister’s papers were destroyed without his consent. To me, that sounds alarm bells and suggests that something is seriously amiss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I think it has such a feel. For me, the whole thing about finance—it is always about finance, and about whether we can give them a bit more—has been helpful to the Government, because it has meant that they have never focused on the issue they should really focus on. As I said at the beginning, if this had been known about, the wave of support behind the people struggling to find out the truth would have been massive—absolutely massive—and the Government would have had nowhere to go and would have had to respond. Consequently, people are still struggling, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I hope that they will not have to struggle for much longer.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is making three major points. The first is that those still alive who are affected and their families need proper, generous help without delay. The second is that there should be an inquiry into what went wrong all the way through, especially about whether people have interfered with the preservation of evidence. Whether people are prosecuted is a separate issue, but actually knowing what happened is what matters most. The third point—this is really the one in my mind—is that there was a difference, as Richard Titmuss pointed out in 1970 in his book “The Gift Relationship”, between blood donations in Britain, where they were freely given by the healthy, and donations in the States, which came from the sources the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If that was stated in a book in 1970, people should have paid attention as soon as they had any warning at all, whether from Stanford or from anybody else.

[Andy Burnham]

That was the direct content of the Stanford letter. There was a worry that the NHS was using such products in a completely different context, not understanding the difference between the two systems. That was the Stanford letter.

I am not standing here claiming to be an expert on all the papers, because I am not; I am saying what I know, from the people I have spoken to, to be wrong, and linking that to the documents in order to say what I believe to be the case. I may not be right, but we need to find out whether I am right, and that is the point that I will be putting to the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I speak briefly in this debate? The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has helped, and the Minister has rightly said that she will consider what he has said and the papers he might be able to provide. May I add that there are still victims who have unmet costs; I have one in my constituency whom I am concerned about? May I suggest that over the election period ministerial advisers pay attention to the comparisons with Hillsborough, and say that it is not just the Government-held papers that matter, but also the ones held in the health service? So, for example, if someone who has died had been told he drank too much when he did not drink seriously at all, that could be part of the evidence that comes into an inquiry.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

There people are dying, yet this goes on and on. People want closure; they know they are coming to the end of their lives, and that they will not get that closure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

That is one of the reasons why I believe that over the election period the advisers to Ministers—not just to Health Ministers, but perhaps also to Home Office Ministers—should consider what could be obtained by the kind of call for evidence and inquiry that the right hon. Member for Leigh has rightly proposed.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

If the right hon. Gentleman has any other points he wants to make through me, he is welcome to do so.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful for the opportunity. The Minister was very kind in her remarks, but the point that perhaps was missed when referencing Archer and Penrose is that I am calling for a different process that takes documents at a very local level and matches them with documents higher up the chain. It is only then that we can put the jigsaw together and start to understand why someone was acting in a certain way in a particular hospital. That is what we are looking for, and that was the strength of the Hillsborough independent panel: it was able to paint that canvas and put all the pieces of the jigsaw together.

I will send the evidence to the Department. The amended police statements only came to light properly just before the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough. What I have presented to the House tonight is altered medical records—that is a fact; that has been given to me. In my view, that is the same trigger and it should be looked into so that the facts can be established. That is new evidence that the Government now need to consider, to take a new decision on this.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The right hon. Gentleman has taken the words out of my mouth, and has said it better than I could have. We are all grateful to him. The point is that this scandal should never have happened, when it was started it should have been stopped, and when it had been stopped people should have known why it had gone on for as long as it did. The right hon. Gentleman has done a service.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The House should not forget that there was a tribunal of inquiry in Ireland. The Lindsay inquiry found that the state knew of the risks and continued nevertheless, because that was what other states such as the UK were doing. So is it credible that an inquiry in Ireland could find that the risks were known but the practice carried on anyway, and that a further investigation through a panel such as that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) would not come to that same conclusion?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

That is one of the questions to be asked.

I conclude by thanking the right hon. Member for Leigh and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who leads the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), sitting in front of me, who has done so much, both as a Back Bencher and a Minister, to make sure that these issues are dealt with.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Of course.

[Dr Whitford]

I know that the Penrose inquiry is always cast up as having dealt with this issue, but that was a Scottish inquiry and it was not able to summon people from the rest of the UK who did not want to attend. Therefore, the idea that Penrose has dealt with this is fallacious. We must have a system where we can summon people to give evidence right across the United Kingdom.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my Welsh hon. Friend for his question. It gives me an opportunity to highlight not only my agreement with the point that he makes, but that this is just about healthcare safety investigations in England. By pursuing this policy to set up HSIB, the Government have embarked on a very, very major and significant reform, which the health services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are certainly watching. I can assure my hon. Friend that they are being watched all over the world. Different countries in different jurisdictions have tried using various bodies to deal with this question. I do not think that any country before England has embarked on a reform of this scale and nature that has the capacity to transform safety investigation in a health system. I very much hope that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will either set up their own equivalent of HSIB, or employ HSIB as the pinnacle of their investigation system as well. This matter is not something that necessarily needs to be devolved any more than the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Does the Chairman agree that each of us receives from our constituents many more golden letters about their treatment in the health service than letters of complaint? When there are complaints or questions, openness and responsiveness matter most, and most of our constituents are satisfied with that. HSIB will be for the pinnacle of the hardest cases, but most cases should be resolved locally by the GPs or the hospitals.

[Mr Jenkin]

I certainly agree that the vast majority of our constituents who experience the care of hospitals or GP practices are extremely grateful for the quality of care that they receive. However, we cannot underestimate how corrosive the blame culture has been throughout our health system. Crises such as those at Mid Staffordshire and at the Morecambe Bay maternity unit arise from the defensive culture that exists in the NHS. If we are to change that into a much more open and collaborative system of learning from mistakes, we need HSIB to set the tone throughout the entire organisation. It is not just about dealing with a few complaints, but about setting a whole new standard for a whole new profession in the NHS about how complaints and clinical incidents are investigated. I am most grateful to have the opportunity to present this report.

Mental Health and NHS Performance

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Let me tell the right hon. Lady what we have done about A&E doctors. Their number has gone up by 1,200 since 2010, which is an increase of over 50%. The number of A&E consultants has gone up by 500, which is an increase of over 20%. At the same time, we have recruited 2,000 more paramedics. As a result of those changes, our emergency departments are seeing—within the four-hour target—2,500 more people every single day compared with 2010. That is not to minimise the pressures in the NHS we have had over the winter or to say that there is not more that needs to be done, which is why I outlined a number of things in my statement.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Secretary of State kindly came to see the plans for the emergency room at Worthing hospital and came back six years later to see how it is working and to admire it in operation. I hope that the next time he comes he can look at the Zachary Merton community hospital and the Swandean mental health services as well.

On child mental health care, may I put it to him that a quarter of the 700,000 teenagers going through each stage each year will have bumps and need resilience, and that their parents and teachers need help? Will he make sure that the Green Paper covers advice to parents and teachers so that they know what is in the normal range of behaviours and what is outside that range?

[Mr Hunt]

I commend my hon. Friend for his one-man campaign, which I continue to admire on many occasions, against the misinformation put out by 38 Degrees. I thank the staff at Worthing hospital for their fantastic work over the busy Christmas period. As usual, he puts his finger on a very important issue, which is that as we seek to raise the profile of mental health treatment for children and young people, we must not medicalise every single moment of stress. For example, worries before exams are not cause to talk to an NHS psychiatrist. A lot of work on the Green Paper will be looking at how we can promote self-help and at how we can help schools to support people through difficult patches, but we will also look at how we can make sure people get NHS care quickly when it is needed.