Reducing Health Inequality

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Alan Johnson

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I rise to express my enthusiastic support for the work of the Health Committee under the superb leadership of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister for her description of health inequalities as a “burning injustice” and for placing the issue at the top of her agenda, which was virtually the first thing she did as Prime Minister of this country.

This is an unusual debate. Usually in this Chamber, Back Benchers press the Government to take something on as a priority, but this is more of a top-down issue. The need to tackle health inequalities has been forcefully expressed by the Prime Minister, and through this debate we are trying to translate those words into effective action. For those of us who have grappled with the nuts and bolts of trying to tackle the obscenity—that is what it is in the 21st century—of health inequality, the Prime Minister’s words were, as the hon. Lady said, enormously encouraging, because they demonstrated the leadership that the issue requires if the awful statistics are to be properly addressed.

I want to set the matter in its historical context to demonstrate the difference in approach that spans the 37 years between the appointments of Britain’s first woman Prime Minister and its second. Although health and life expectancy improved dramatically for everyone following the creation of the NHS in 1948, there was a strong suspicion by the 1970s that persistent health inequalities existed and that they were defined largely by social class. There was, however, an absence of easily understood statistical evidence on which to base a clear assertion. In 1977, the then Health Secretary, David Ennals, commissioned the president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Douglas Black, to chair a working group that would report to Government on the extent of health inequalities in the UK and how best to address them. The report proved conclusively that death rates for many diseases were higher among those in the lower social classes. Stripped bare, it was the first official acknowledgment that the circumstances into which a person was born would largely determine when they died. That remains the thrust of the argument expressed by the Health Committee’s report, except that it has quite rightly added the new dimension, which was highlighted by the Marmot indicators of health inequalities in November 2015, of the difference made by the number of years spent in good health. There is an extraordinary gap between the most and the least disadvantaged of almost 17 years.

By the time the Black report was published, a new Government had been elected. They displayed their enthusiasm for tackling health inequalities by reluctantly publishing fewer than 300 copies of the report on an August bank holiday Monday in the depths of the summer recess. In his foreword to the report, the new Health Secretary could not even raise the enthusiasm to damn the report with faint praise; he simply damned it and virtually ignored it, and that remained the case for 18 years.

This is important because people assume that health has improved for everyone since the 1940s—it has, by and large—yet during those 18 years, many of the problems that Black highlighted actually got worse. For instance, in the early 1970s, the mortality rate among young men of working age in unskilled groups was almost twice as high as that among those in professional groups; by the early 1990s, it was three times as high. The most awful statistic—this began to emerge in the 1980s—was that the long-term unemployed were 35 times more likely to commit suicide than people in work. It would be inconceivable today for a Health Secretary to be as dismissive of an issue that is so critical to the life chances of so many.

We are also more aware today than we were then that healthcare is only part of the problem. Indeed—the Minister has a difficult job—it is a minor part: the proportion has been calculated at between 15% and 25%. The epidemiologist Professor Sir Michael Marmot, the world’s leading expert on this subject, has established the social determinants of health. The Acheson report of the late 1990s explained:

“Poverty, low wages and occupational stress, unemployment, poor housing, environmental pollution, poor education, limited access to transport and shops”—

and the internet—

“crime and disorder, a lack of recreational facilities…all have an impact on people’s health.”

Beveridge’s five giants—disease, want, ignorance, squalor and idleness—were a more pithy and poetic way of describing the problem. Beveridge’s brother-in-law, the historian and Christian socialist R. H. Tawney, set the template that we should follow. He said the issue was

“not…to cherish the romantic illusion that men are equal in character and intelligence. It is to hold that…eliminating such inequalities as have their source, not in individual differences, but in its own organization”.

The Marmot report, which I commissioned as Health Secretary in 2008 to inform policy from 2010 onwards—unfortunately, the electorate decided that we would not be in office to carry this out—recommended six policy areas on which we should focus: the best start in life; maximising capabilities and control; fair employment and good work; a healthy standard of living; healthy and sustainable places and communities; and a strengthened role for and provision of ill-health prevention. Marmot advised that those six areas should be focused on with a scale and intensity proportionate to the level of disadvantage, which he called “proportionate universalism”. The coalition Government accepted all Sir Michael’s recommendations. However, they responded with a policy— “Healthy Lives, Healthy People”—in which the focus was on individual lifestyle and behavioural change. That, as Sir Michael has pointed out, is only one facet of the problem, just as the NHS is only one part of the solution. Moreover, the only piece of cross-Government co-ordinating machinery, the Cabinet Sub-Committee on health, was scrapped in 2012.

The Health Committee’s report on public health and today’s debate, together with the Prime Minister’s pledge, give us a fresh opportunity to capitalise on the brilliant work done by Sir Michael Marmot and his Institute of Health Equity at University College London, and on the political consensus that I am pleased to say now exists on this issue, by forging a fresh and dynamic response across the Government to tackling health inequalities. One of the Committee’s recommendations, as has been mentioned, is that a Cabinet Office Minister should be given specific responsibility for leading on this issue across the Government. I have a more radical suggestion: the Prime Minister herself should take personal responsibility for this issue. The Prime Minister is also the First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service, and previous Prime Ministers have taken on other ministerial positions—Wellington was also Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Colonial Secretary, and Churchill was Prime Minister and Defence Secretary. It would set a wonderful example if the Prime Minister followed up her words by saying, “I’m going to lead on this. I’m going to chair the cross-Government Committee that tackles health inequalities.” That level of leadership is needed, because only then will there be meaningful cross-departmental work to tackle these inequalities.

I echo the Health Committee’s view that devolving public health to local authorities was the right thing to do. Not everything in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was approved by Opposition Members or many other people, but that change was the right thing to do. The cuts in authorities’ budgets—£200 million of in-year cuts—must be restored and I suggest that the ring fence is extended at least to the end of this Parliament. With local government having so many problems, I fear that breaking the ring fence for public health will mean that the money goes elsewhere and is not focused on these issues.

As I have said, only a minority of health inequality issues involve the Department of Health, but I want to highlight one that quite certainly does. The biggest cause of the hospitalisation of children between the ages of five and 14 is dental caries: 33,124 children went into hospital to be anaesthetised and have their teeth extracted in the past year. Incidentally, that is 11,000 more than for the second biggest cause of the hospitalisation of children, which is abdominal and pelvic pain. Believe it or not, it was the 12th highest cause of hospitalisation of tiny children below the age of four.

This is a health equality issue. Almost all the children who went into hospital were from deprived communities, including 700 from the city I represent. There is a safe and proven way dramatically to reduce tooth decay in children, and it also has a beneficial effect on adults. It involves ensuring the fluoridation of water up to the optimum level of 1 part per million. The cost of fluoridation is small. For every £1 spent there is a return to the taxpayer of £12 after five years and of £22 after 10 years. The evidence—from the west midlands and the north-east, and from countries across the world—has now existed for many years. A five-year-old child in Hull has 87.4% more tooth extractions than one living in fluoridated Walsall. The whole medical profession, the dental profession, the British Medical Association and the Department of Health have recognised that for many years.

In Hull, we intend to fluoridate our water as part of a concerted policy to tackle this element of health inequality. We need the Department of Health to show moral leadership by encouraging local authorities in deprived areas to pursue fluoridation, and supporting them when they do. The Health Secretary retains ultimate responsibility for public health, including ill-health prevention. This is one issue on which he can begin the process of reducing hospital admissions by encouraging preventive action and, in terms of health inequalities, giving poor kids prosperous kids’ teeth.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Has he or anyone else solved the problem of how to protect water supply companies and businesses so that they do not find themselves facing unjustified claims or difficulties?

[Alan Johnson]

I had actually finished my speech, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention as my conclusion. I have talked to Yorkshire Water, and my understanding is that putting the focus on local authorities changes the whole dynamic of how the various conspiracy theorists can attack on this issue.