Contaminated Blood

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I welcome the Backbench Business Committee’s selection of this important topic, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on their efforts in securing this valuable debate.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous campaigning work of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Its efforts have helped to pave the way for the current Department of Health consultation to secure a lasting financial and support settlement for those thousands of people infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Let me say at the outset that my heart goes out to those people who have been affected by the contaminated blood scandal, both in my constituency of South East Cornwall and across the country. The devastating impact on patients and their families and friends is immeasurable and lasts for a lifetime. We must all do what we can to ensure that those affected have as secure a future as possible.

I have personal experience of trying to help one constituent who has sadly been impacted by this terrible tragedy. My constituent was infected with contaminated blood in 1985 at the age of 35 and subsequently contracted full blown hepatitis C, which has now developed into cirrhosis of the liver.

My constituent, who understandably has asked not to be identified, has undergone three courses of arduous interferon-based treatment. The last course caused a life-threatening infection that required a month in hospital and some invasive surgery and extensive abdominal surgery.

Now aged 65, my constituent suffers from severe fatigue, physical weakness, brain fog, which means that she is unable to read anything vaguely complicated, constant itching, fever, sweats, depression and total and permanent hair loss. The stress of living with those conditions on a daily basis for 30 years must be immeasurable. The Government must do all they can to support patients and their families.

My constituent wanted me to highlight her case as an example of where anomalies in support for patients suffering from cirrhosis of the liver have led to financial hardship and additional worry at a very distressing time. She was very grateful for the lump sum she received and an income of £14,760 per annum. However, that figure would be £26,000 in Scotland, nearly double the sum offered in England. That is iniquitous.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

A constituent of mine—Janis Richards of Sudbury—has written to me, and hers is a very tragic case similar to that highlighted by my hon. Friend. I am struggling to explain to her why there are such different arrangements for constituents across the United Kingdom, given that this problem originally arose under a UK Government.

[Mrs Murray]

I completely concur with my hon. Friend. My constituent is particularly concerned about proposals to withdraw index linking from annual income and to refuse to increase it by any meaningful amount. I understand that there is a recommendation to fix annual payments at a flat rate of £15,000 a year, which would leave my constituent with a nominal financial increase of about £240. There are also proposals to withdraw back-up services for emergencies and to withdraw support, which my constituent will certainly require, given the severity of her condition.

May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify the position, and to take my constituent’s concerns into account when formulating final proposals? My constituent previously enjoyed a successful career in the legal profession, but she became too ill to pursue it after her infection with contaminated blood. Her career was, sadly, cut short, as was her considerable earning potential and professional development.

Patients must be treated with fairness, and each case must be assessed and supported on its merits. I am grateful that the Prime Minister acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and apologised on behalf of the UK Government. I welcome the additional funding for England that was announced in 2015 to ease the transition to a reformed scheme and ensure its sustainable operation with patients at its core. That scheme must provide a robust and fair system that supports and compensates those who are affected and removes any unnecessary complexity and unfairness.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

At the start of her speech, the hon. Lady mentioned the excellent work of the APPG. It is right to highlight that, because it has shed a lot of light on the issue. In every constituency, there are heart-breaking stories like that of her constituent. I have two constituents who, through no fault of their own, received contaminated blood products, and one of them feels as though he has a death sentence hanging over his head. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not, quite literally, add insult to injury, and that a just and fair settlement must be found as soon as possible? I know that the Conservative Government were not necessarily responsible for the blood products, but it is in the gift of this Government to sort the matter out once and for all.

[Mrs Murray]

I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and that she and the Government will take action to make it easier for affected people to live as good a life as they can expect to.

There are currently five different organisations funded by the Department of Health to which affected individuals can apply for support. It is encouraging that staff in those schemes have said that the system would be more efficient and consistent if the organisations were combined. Other concerns that have been raised should be addressed through the consultation and subsequent proposals. Those concerns include the fact that beneficiaries are not individually assessed, and that bodies operate different payment policies. The APPG is quite correct to state that the system is not fit for purpose. The consultation that the Department of Health is conducting, which concludes this week, is a helpful step. I am pleased that the Department of Health has reached out to, and sought views from, affected patients and their beneficiaries, and I congratulate the Minister on that. The outcome must lead to a fair and sustainable solution for my constituent and for impacted individuals and families across the country.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I certainly would not agree that my hon. Friend’s experience is mediocre—quite the opposite. I understand the thrust of his point, but I disagree, because at a time when politics can be seen to be remote it is important that the public are engaged in these debates. I also think it would be wrong to say Ministers’ minds are closed. I am sure those on the Front Bench this morning would agree that Ministers’ minds are not, and should not be, closed—certainly not before a public consultation.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

May I repeat a question already asked: who would finance the public consultations? Would it be the charitable trust, the Government, or local government? Will my hon. Friend expand on that?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The point about cost is important. At the end of the day it would have to come from taxpayers, which I accept is a challenge and a potential disadvantage. My argument is that in the principle of a public consultation the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

[Mrs Murray]

What is my hon. Friend’s estimate of the consultations’ cost to the taxpayer? Has he done any analysis of how many consultations there might be, and of their cost?

[Michael Tomlinson]

Again, I do not have those figures to hand. My hon. Friend is right to raise this because it is an issue of concern; cost must always be borne in mind, but, as I have said, I am speaking to the principle, and unfortunately I do not have the specific figures she asks for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

Again, I am grateful for the intervention and understand the point being made, but I disagree with my hon. Friend. Although this is technical in nature, I believe the principle of public consultation would be beneficial to the wider public. It would be curious to be opposed to public consultation, certainly in principle, given that this Bill is a product of just such a consultation.

Let me give one further example of public consultations attracting wide support. Many in this House, on both sides of the Chamber, have been fighting for fairer funding.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that most of us would support adequate public consultation, but I am concerned that we do not know how much cost we will burden the taxpayer with. I press him again: how many consultations does he envisage? What would the cost be?

[Michael Tomlinson]

Once again, I am grateful for the intervention, but, with respect, may I say that my hon. Friend is merely repeating a point that she made before? As I explained, I do not have those figures to hand and so, with regret, I cannot give her a specific figure. I understand the general thrust of the point she makes, but I respectfully disagree with it and am giving a further example in relation to fairer funding, with which I think she will agree. I refer to the successful campaign for fairer funding for our schools, where there will be a period of public consultation following it.

[Mrs Murray]

Is my hon. Friend indicating that local authorities would have to bear the cost?

[Michael Tomlinson]

Again, with respect to my hon. Friend, may I say that she is repeating a point she made before? I did accept that this money would have to come out of the public purse, but I am seeking to persuade her and other hon. Members that the benefits of public consultation will outweigh the costs. I am giving a good example, or at least I hope I am, about fairer funding. I hope she will agree that having fought and campaigned for fairer funding for our schools, for example, those in Dorset and Poole, which are grossly underfunded, it is right that the public and the stakeholders are consulted. It is right that parents, local authorities, school governors and the general public are consulted, and I encourage everyone to respond to that consultation to ensure that we—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

Yes. I am trying to get to a position where we can have confidence in the governance of charities, and confidence that when things go wrong, there are appropriate mechanisms for someone to step in and deal with things quickly. My point is that in the case of national health service charities—that is what people think of them as—at some point, the Secretary of State will be asked to sort out problems.

We have to remember that there are practicalities involved in this. If the Secretary of State is unable to take control of the board and replace the trustees, he or she cannot get immediate access to the bank account. They cannot get anybody to sign a mandate to allow them to control the money, or even to freeze the account to stop money flowing in or out. When this hospital pass, this UXB or unexploded bomb of a hospital charity that has behaved badly or got into trouble, perhaps through no fault of its own, lands in the lap of a Secretary of State, whoever it may be—it could be one of us here on these Benches in the future, perhaps—the inability to step in and take control will have a significant political, and indeed financial, impact. That might impact on the care that takes place on the ward.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend has cited one charity as an example, but does he have any recent information about any NHS hospital charities or NHS charitable trusts on which he is basing his assumptions?

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not, and the reason is that the Secretary of State currently has control of the appointment of trustees. That is exactly why. If I were Secretary of State—I assume that the same is true of the current Secretary of State and past Secretaries of State—I would be very careful about who I appointed, so that I was sure that I was handing that fiduciary duty to people whom I trusted and who had an element of accountability to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes a mistake. I did not object to the time; my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) objected to time possibly being used on these matters. I am perfectly happy. I think that the Bill is very good and I support its broad thrust.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when he said that the Bill relates to a single NHS charity, he was referring to one clause? It would help if he clarified that because I got the impression that he said that the Bill related to one specific NHS charity.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right. I correct myself. One clause relates to Great Ormond Street and the rest of the Bill clears up some anomalies. The debate is not about Great Ormond Street’s requirements, but about other ancillary bits in the Bill. One wonders whether the rest of the Bill could have been included in the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill, and we could have had a short measure about Great Ormond Street, but that is a matter for the Bill’s promoter and sponsors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I am not being pessimistic. I am, I hope, exhorting a message of confidence and optimism that we as politicians should have some sense of belief in what we do. We take our chances—sadly, only once every five years now, rather than once every random number of years—and have confidence. Like my hon. Friend, I want to be a champion for the power and the outlook of this House, so that we do not have to go out and consult constantly, that we are based in a philosophy of which we are sure, and that people understand why our decisions are made given what they have seen of that philosophy.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend mentions his experience in previous roles of engaging in unnecessary and lengthy consultation procedures. How much of a financial burden does he feel they have been on the taxpayer?

[Kit Malthouse]

I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure, but it is enormous. Many, many hundreds of millions, if not billions, have been spent on consultation where, broadly, minds were made up beforehand. I well remember, back in 2002, the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, consulting on bringing in the congestion charge. He, of course, had already made the decision. In fact, during the consultation the gantries to put the cameras in were already going up. Of course, the response from the public came back overwhelmingly against—nobody wanted it. We could all see the disaster it would be, not least because it was not a congestion charge but a tax on central London. He just shoved it in anyway.

I led the judicial review against the congestion charge in the High Court and sadly failed. The only chink in the armour we could find was the environmental audit, which was useful to me then but is a vehicle that Ministers and other politicians go through to tick the box. We find ourselves, as a country, in this enormous box-ticking exercise. So uncertain are we of what we should and should not do, and so wary are we of the vagaries of public opinion and fashion, that we feel the need to consult constantly.

The wider point is that it communicates to the public an uncertainty about political institutions and therefore undermines respect for them. When people talk about the politicians they respect, they always talk about—even though they did not agree with him—the great Labour Member, Tony Benn. Tony Benn always used to say, “Say what you mean and mean what you say.” I do not think Tony Benn ever consulted about anything in his entire life. He had his beliefs pretty much set at an early age and he delivered them. Everybody knew where he stood. Our former great leader, Margaret Thatcher, was exactly the same. A lack of consultation with her party colleagues might have done for her in the end, but consultation on the broad thrust of policy was anathema to her. She displayed and promoted what she believed. On that note, I commend my amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is correct that my Bill is the result of public consultation, as I will expand upon later.

Schedule 1 already makes a range of amendments to primary legislation consequential to the removal of the Secretary of State’s powers in England to appoint trustees to NHS bodies and to appoint special trustees, and it would be unusual to consult the public on regulations making such consequential changes. Proper scrutiny of such consequential amendments would be undertaken by Parliament. That is the main reason I do not support his amendment even though it is a valid discussion point.

I will move now to those amendments that relate to the appointment of trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has clearly given a lot of thought to my Bill and introduced some very worthy and interesting amendments. I wish to make it clear, however, that I do not wish to swap the letterbox of Aldridge-Brownhills for that of North West Hampshire, given the apparent tone of much of the mail that he receives, and neither would I wish to go camping with his family—the thought of my sleeping bag being laid on concrete does not appeal. I would prefer something more comfortable. Even a field would be preferable—ideally undercover.

The removal of the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees is central to my Bill. Having him appoint trustees makes it difficult for these NHS bodies to demonstrate visible independence from Government in the eyes of potential donors. That cuts to the heart of my Bill. Having read and considered the amendments carefully, and having listened to this debate, I struggle to see how they would work on a technical level. The current power is to appoint trustees to particular NHS bodies or to appoint special trustees, not, as the amendments suggest, to appoint trustees to NHS charitable trusts. They therefore seek to re-establish a power that does not currently exist in such a form. I know that the Bill at times gets very technical, but we have to keep coming back to what it sets out to do and the consultation it came from. Similarly, the amendments seeking to retain the Secretary of State’s power to appoint trustees in particular circumstances, when there is a commitment to remove them, are not appropriate.

Before I talk further about amendments relating to trustees, it is important to remind ourselves of the background to clause 1, which I have alluded to before. The Bill concerns the removal of the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint. Since 1973, the Secretary of State has had powers to appoint so-called special trustees to manage charitable property on behalf of hospital boards. In 1990, powers for the Secretary of State to appoint trustees in relation to NHS trusts were enacted, and have since been extended to other NHS bodies. These powers are now set out in the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended.

My private Member’s Bill fulfils a commitment made by the Government subsequent to the Department of Health review and consultation—there is that word again—in 2012, which covered the governance of NHS charities. As a result, NHS charities will be allowed to convert to independence and the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees will be removed at the earliest opportunity. That is what my Bill is designed to achieve.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, are not some of the amendments completely unnecessary, because consultation has already taken place? Is that correct?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely. As I am explaining, the amendments, worthy of consideration though they be, are not necessary in the light of the research I have done, and they would fundamentally change the objectives of the Bill.

The amendment to make

“provision for one trustee to be appointed by the NHS institution…for whose benefit the charitable trust exists”

is an interesting one, but again I do not believe it necessary. Under the new independent charity model there can be a “blend of trustees”, meaning there can be a link to the hospital—on the proviso that the NHS members remain in the minority. That is important. When we are seeking to move away from Secretary of State appointments to a more independence model for special charities, it is the word “independence” that is crucial. These charities are seeking to be independent of Government for fundraising and many other purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I am conscious of the time, so I shall be careful not to be either repetitive or irrelevant, and to confine my remarks to the amendments. I should make it clear at the outset that, while I respect the points of passion—and fashion—that have been made in support of them, I do not think that any of them would enhance the Bill.

Amendment 4 deals with public consultation. We surely do not want to ask people to comment on a matter that has already been decided, or in circumstances in which a response to a consultation will not make any real difference to the outcome—other than, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), potentially helping to take funds away from either the charity and its objectives or the Department of Health, which is paying for the consultation.

As several Members said, nothing is more likely to build public cynicism about politics than the idea that people have been asked to comment on something and their comments will then be virtually ignored. I can think of an example in local government. A council wanted to reduce free weekend parking, because that had been a manifesto commitment and the council had been returned with a majority. However, it then had to engage in a legal public consultation to find out whether motorists objected to the idea of free parking at the weekend, as opposed to the idea of paying for it. That was absolute nonsense. Several thousand pounds were wasted on advertising in the local press with public notices, and, funnily enough, no motorist wrote in saying, “Do you know what, I would actually like to pay two quid next time I park.”

We should not introduce measures that will engender cynicism. We should not say that a measure has been decided on and announced, but will be subject to a consultation; nor should we provide for a consultation on a matter that is highly technical, and with which very few people will be able to engage. When I was preparing for the Second Reading debate and for today’s Report stage, I found myself burrowing into a huge amount of detail. I do not see how a consultation would be effective.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

With individual consultations as well, there is no guarantee we are going to reach everyone. I remember when a consultation was entered into on whether Cornwall should have a unitary council, and the company used admitted in the end that it had not reached all the households concerned, so a lot of people were missed. This is one of the downsides of consulting on individual things.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend makes excellent points about the difficulties in reaching everyone. In the consultation that created Cornwall Council, there was a major discussion to be had on, I believe, six district councils and one county council being merged into one. There was significant media coverage on, for instance, BBC “Spotlight” and BBC Radio Cornwall, but still, even after all that, some people will have said, “I didn’t know the consultation was going on,” or “I didn’t know exactly what the nature of the consultation was.”

I sat through discussions about future local government structures, including referendums on an elected mayor, during my time in the midlands. People could, I think, engage with some things—for example, planning decisions or social services decisions—but in terms of how a local charity board is structured at the local hospital, and who can make appointments, how they are structured and the process gone through to make them, I cannot see many people saying, “I want to go out to talk about that on a Tuesday night in mid-February.”

If we are having consultations, they should be meaningful. On the question of what is “appropriate”, we should be asking what the appropriate stage is of decision making for each item. As I have argued in the Chamber before, on major constitutional change—the voting system for this House, for instance, or whether we abolish, or significantly change, the other place—we would probably at least need a manifesto commitment, and without that people should be directly asked for their consent to make that change. In terms of the fundamental constitution, it should have the direct consent of the people, therefore. At the other end of the spectrum, however, none of us would argue that the things that this House deals with through secondary legislation would be appropriate subjects for public referendums.

We should ask what the appropriate process is, and in this case the appropriate level of consultation would more be along these lines: “Yes, the charities should talk to each other and, yes, they should go through the normal process to appoint trustees by speaking to their members, but they do not necessarily have to host a public meeting to discuss that.” If this amendment were passed, there would be the nonsense that these particular charities would be required to go through a public consultation, yet the vast majority of charities in this country, who are regulated under the normal method for charities, would not have to do so. I recognise the intention of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) in wanting people to be able to engage with the NHS and its services, but this amendment is not the right way of going about it.

On amendments 1, 3 and 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I found the level of doom and disaster that was presented as possibly affecting these particular NHS charities quite interesting. If anyone listening is thinking of becoming a trustee, they might be slightly put off from doing so when they hear all the things that could possibly happen to them as a member of the board of trustees of one of these charities. I am not at all convinced that we need special provision in this Bill for these charities, rather than the wealth of charitable legislation that we already have, including a Bill currently before this House to change that legislation.

I do not think these amendments would tackle the issues, and worst of all they still give the idea that the Secretary of State is in control of a charity. As I said on Second Reading, at the heart of this Bill is independence. It is about these charities not being seen as an arm’s length part of the Department of Health—not being seen as government by the back door.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right. The whole point of the Bill is to free these charities from being, in effect, arm’s length parts of the Government. If we say, “We want to free you, but now we want to pop back in the Secretary of State having specific powers that do not apply to any other charities”, that is not a coherent argument and it would not produce coherent legislation. Hon. Members may have concerns about how charities are regulated and whether someone can go off to the Seychelles with the money, but that is a debate about the wider system of charity regulation in this country. They should not seek to put something specific into this Bill that adds another layer of bureaucracy for the charities involved, given that the whole point of the Bill is to get shot of such bureaucracy. I am not persuaded by those amendments.

Amendment 9 deals with the NHS logo. It was put forward eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but, sadly, I will not be joining in the fashion of supporting it. I appreciate that the bodies it deals with are working closely with the NHS, but so, too, do other charities. For example, the Torbay Hospital League of Friends has its own logo and it successfully raises money for Torbay hospital. The name makes it obvious what it is linked with.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

We could extend that point even further. A lot of the surgeries in my constituency have “friends of the surgery” organisations. Are we saying that they should be allowed to use the NHS logo, too? Where does this end?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for that good point. Once we start on the principle of these changes, where do we stop? Karing, a charity in my constituency—it is in Preston, in Paignton—is very closely linked with a local doctor’s surgery, and it was lucky enough recently to have had its new base opened by Esther Rantzen. It is not, however, part of that surgery. Clearly, the two work together, with Karing supporting and providing great services, giving real benefits to local people, but, crucially, it is not part of the business that is the surgery, nor is it part of the business that is the NHS. That is where the logo point comes in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her expert stewardship in guiding the Bill through Report to Third Reading.

I must declare a special interest as a former doctors’ receptionist in my constituency for more than 20 years. I witnessed several occasions when patients needed treatment that was not classed as a priority, but was naturally very important to them. This is where NHS charities can play, and have played, a vital role.

I also pay tribute to the Seafarers Hospital Society and commend the work it does. It was established about 200 years ago and still provides services to seafarers and fishermen at the Dreadnought unit in St Thomas’s hospital, just across the Thames. It provides vital services for those very brave men who operate in very dangerous conditions.

We must not forget the wonderful work, which many Members have mentioned today, of the leagues of friends, which provide comfort and support to patients and their families, often at difficult times in their lives. Staff in my South East Cornwall constituency and across the country benefit considerably from their work.

I want briefly to mention the way in which the family of one of my constituents benefited directly from the amazing work of Great Ormond Street’s charitable fund. It meant that essential treatment was provided to their daughter at a critical time. I put on the record my thanks to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity and to the hospital and its staff for their work at what was a very difficult time for that young lady and for improving her life so considerably.

There are some outstanding NHS charities in the south-west. Obviously, I could not sit down without mentioning the fantastic work of Cornwall Partnership NHS Financial Trust charitable fund and Plymouth Hospitals General Charity, which enables Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust to improve services for patients, many of whom are my constituents.

To conclude, I warmly welcome the Bill and offer my support and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Her vision and tenacity will help NHS charities to continue, thrive and evolve.

Space Policy

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I rise to put the case for Cornwall. We have heard a lot about Scotland, but we did hear some references to Newquay in the opening speech.

I want to put it on the record and make Members aware that Cornwall is already the home of the Aerohub. Newquay has a runway that can accommodate the fastest and largest civilian and military planes. Formerly the home of RAF St Mawgan, Newquay is an ideal location for the new space hub.

Cornwall more widely has a lot of knowledge and history relating to space. Goonhilly downs had the first dish, Antenna 1, nicknamed Arthur, which started operating in 1962 and linked with Telstar. That led the way in UK communications. My constituency has the Caradon observatory, which Ken and Muriel Bennett funded themselves. It is in an ideal location. It takes fantastic photographs, thanks to the dark skies over Bodmin moor, that are published in space magazines.

I did not intend to make a contribution today, but I felt that I should point out that Cornwall has an extremely good case. It is one of eight locations that is being considered. I just wanted to make the case, as a Cornish Member of Parliament, and to say that we are still there. Being successful in this bid would not only be good for Newquay, but superb for the county that I call home.

Junior Doctors Contract

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

In an attempt to build on the opportunity of trust, after the BMA withdrew from negotiations last year, the work went to the independent Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration to urge an independent look at the issue and to get recommendations based on that independent review. When those recommendations appeared, the BMA still did not go into negotiations. That independent review has been sought, and the recommendations are there to talk about. When the hon. Gentleman spoke to junior doctors in his constituency—probably about misleading information that they may have had from the BMA—I hope he said clearly that he does not support strike action. It might be helpful if he told the House that that is what he said.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Many of my constituents will want to know if the Secretary of State is satisfied with the reassurances given by the BMA, which has refused to confirm it will do what is necessary to ensure patients are not hurt if the strike takes place.

[Alistair Burt]

I am quite sure I can say to my hon. Friend that no one ever wants to see anyone hurt, but, if there is a withdrawal of labour, it is not possible to say that certain procedures to relieve the discomfort of existing patients will take place. That is obviously the point of the action and why no one wishes to see it happen. I repeat that no doctor wishes to put a patient in a situation of harm. No Minister wants to see that and none of us here does. This process has been going on for three and a half years; there has been reference to independent people, recommendations that the BMA played a part in making and an open offer always to come back to negotiations. That does not seem an unreasonable position for the Secretary of State to take. That is why it should be backed by everyone sitting in the House today.

Respiratory Health

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In fact, we believe that more than 2 million people in the UK have COPD but are completely undiagnosed. The British Lung Foundation has done a great deal of work to try to raise the profile of COPD. It has also done a great deal of work on pulmonary rehabilitation with its “Breathe Easy” groups, which help people who are suffering from COPD to access support networks and improve some of the scarring and problems that they have with their lungs. A recent study of more than 39,000 COPD patients showed that more than half had symptoms for six to 10 years before the diagnosis was made—my hon. Friend’s point is powerful—and 42% had has those symptoms for up to 15 years before being diagnosed.

I want to tell the story of Neil, 50 years old and from Norwich. He was continually misdiagnosed by doctors despite being at high risk of lung disease and showing signs of the condition throughout his 30s. By the time he was finally diagnosed, he had lost most of his lung capacity.

Neil was a long-term smoker who worked for many years in cold and dusty conditions. When he was younger, he visited doctors regularly and had breathless attacks that sometimes required emergency treatment in hospital. However, he was never offered a lung function test by his doctor, and he felt that his smoking habit was used as a reason to dismiss his symptoms and not investigate them fully. At the age of 39, he finally managed to see a specialist in the hospital, but his symptoms led doctors to think that he had asthma.

When a doctor told him the extent of the scarring and damage already done to his lungs, Neil decided to quit smoking on that very same day. He also cut back on some work to improve his working conditions. Five years ago, he developed two bouts of pneumonia. His health deteriorated: he felt constantly breathless and could barely walk 50 feet. Even at that stage, Neil was not given a lung function test or information about how to manage his condition; instead, he was told that he could expect to recover soon. He was forced to give up work completely and his wife Wendy had to start caring for him.

Eventually, a doctor told Neil that he had COPD. He had lost 70% of his lung function by the time he was told that he had COPD. He was able to speak to a specialist nurse at his local surgery who took the time to work with him and got him referred to pulmonary rehabilitation, and he became a member of one of the British Lung Foundation’s “Breathe Easy” groups, which are support networks that help people with COPD to come together to improve their conditions and exercise levels, to move forward and to improve themselves all round.

Neil can now talk quite a bit, and he speaks at length about his condition. He has decided that everyone who attends a “Breathe Easy” group becomes an expert on respiratory health and care. Fortunately, his experience was positive in the end, but he had lost 70% of his lung function before he was diagnosed with COPD—that could have been done five or 10 years earlier. Sadly, Neil’s story is a classic example of what is happening right now in GP surgeries and hospitals throughout the country. People have a right to know if they develop such a condition, and they must believe that they will receive the treatment that they want and deserve when they come forward with it.

A big Public Health England awareness campaign is due to take place in the east of England, involving a breathlessness exercise. I did it myself last year in Stevenage—although I would urge Members not to look at the photograph on my website that shows me taking the test because it was a bad hair day and it is an odd photograph—and the nurses were able to tell me that I had asthma, which is very well controlled. Throughout the day, they diagnosed a number of people with COPD, asthma and a range of other respiratory diseases. Had that bus not turned up in Stevenage and those volunteers had not been given those tests, a large number of those people would not know that they had a respiratory disease. Fortunately, the campaign will be rolled out across the whole of the east of England, so I hope that the Minister will visit it and identify whether it is a positive thing that could be rolled out throughout the country.

The NHS health check for those between the ages of 40 and 74 does not include a lung function or respiratory disease test, but 13% of all people over the age of 35 already have COPD. A lung function test should be included because, as my experience on the breathlessness bus in Stevenage showed, such a check would pick up large numbers of people, enabling them to get the care that they need. They will then be able to push on with their lives, instead of having to wait 10 years and only being told, when they are admitted to hospital with the possibility of dying within four years, that they might have COPD.

I am passionate about the need to improve basic care for people with asthma, and I join Asthma UK in highlighting the seriousness of a condition that affects 1.1 million children and 4.3 million adults in the UK. The sort of headlines that we saw last week, which were referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), are unhelpful when we know that too many people are complacent about asthma. Every 10 seconds, someone in the UK has an asthma attack. Every single day, on average, three people die in the UK from an asthma attack. The national review of asthma deaths, which was led by the Royal College of Physicians, suggests that two out of three of those deaths are preventable.

That review by the Royal College of Physicians was the first such review in this country. It was begun in 2012 and lasted a year, and it was published in May 2014. It found that 57% of people who died from asthma were not recorded as receiving specialist care 12 months before their death; 47% of those who died had a history of hospital admissions; and 21% had attended A and E within the previous 12 months. A written asthma action plan is a step-by-step guide to managing asthma and provides individuals with guidance on what to do if they have an asthma attack, but only 23% of the people who died had an asthma action plan, so more than 75% did not have one.

The Royal College of Physicians found that many asthma deaths could have been avoided had staff received better training. In fact, the expert panel found that 46% of such deaths could have been avoided had the existing asthma guidelines been implemented. The review also found evidence for both over and under-prescription of reliever inhalers, the blue bronchodilators. On average, someone should receive 12 inhalers a year; a number of people are receiving far fewer than 12 and, among a variety of other figures, some are receiving up to 50 inhalers a year. Just from the number of prescriptions, we can identify the target audience of people who will be seriously at risk of dying from an asthma attack.

The statistics and the all-party report both make it clear that too many people are not getting the basic levels of care and that there is great variation in the standards of that care across the country. It is essential that clinical standards are followed consistently. I have asthma myself, so I understand that the condition is complex and variable and should be taken seriously. People with asthma should continue to use their inhalers routinely and ensure that they attend their annual asthma review, at which they may discuss their diagnosis, medications and written asthma action plan.

Last year, more than 1 million people who have asthma did not turn up to their asthma review. I did, because my wife, my mum and my asthma nurse all gang up on me and force me to go every single year. They almost insist on me having my flu jab twice a year. In Parliament, I normally host a session for people with respiratory conditions to have their flu jabs each year. Unless I provide a picture of myself receiving the needle at that session, I am required to have another at my GP’s surgery in Stevenage. So I have to smile at the camera while the lady enjoys stabbing me with a needle—I am sure she takes a little longer than she should. I do that every year.

Let me tell the House about my experience of asthma. I was diagnosed with it when I was eight, and I am now 38 years of age. The Minister will be shocked and disappointed to know that my treatment has not changed in 30 years. The experience at the doctor’s that I had when I was eight is exactly the same as my experience now, except that nowadays I see an asthma nurse, whereas then it was a doctor. The asthma nurse takes the time to go through my peak flow monitor with me, and she weighs and measures me—I think I get shorter every year, and a little heavier—but in effect that is what the doctor was doing when I was eight, although then I was getting slightly taller, if slightly heavier too. The reality is that things have not changed at all.

I was one of those children who was diagnosed with bronchitis from the age of about five until I was eight. The doctors thought, “Oh no, it hasn’t gone in three years, so he must have asthma”, so I was given my inhalers. If I turned up to the doctor’s and said, “I have got this or that”, they would say, “Are you using your inhalers?” I would reply, “Yes, I am using my inhalers.” They would say, “Why don’t you take your blue reliever inhaler”—they call it a Ventolin bronchodilator—“a little more?” That would be my treatment. I have not had antibiotics, but if I were younger, they might have given me a two-week course of them and told me to come back if whatever it was had not cleared up. In effect, that is what I got when I was eight and what I get now when I am 38. That is why we have the highest rate of respiratory deaths among the OECD countries—the treatment for asthma for people at GP surgeries up and down the country has not really changed. It is exactly the same.

There has been some progress. I am delighted to report that after a campaign of three and a half years by myself, other Members of Parliament and Asthma UK, for the first time we can now have asthma inhalers in first aid kits in schools. It took us three and a half years, which is ridiculous, because those inhalers are prescribed medication, which could not simply be given out by a teacher.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

My hon. Friend might be aware that before I came to this place, I was a receptionist for a GP. One of the biggest problems that parents find is that they do not have two inhalers prescribed at the same time for their child, so that one can be kept at school and one at home. That is one reason why we need to ensure that all schools have an inhaler for use in an emergency.

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I suffer from that myself, so I have an overnight bag in Parliament in case we get stuck here until 4 or 5 in the morning, and it has an inhaler in it. I had to get that inhaler off my dad, because I could not get another one off my own GP. I am a Member of Parliament, but I could not get myself an extra inhaler, so I am not sure what chance a child has of persuading an extra inhaler off the doctor, which his mates will probably just play with. I understand such problems, which is why I said earlier to the Minister that the treatment for asthma has not really changed in the 30 years that I have had it. There has been progress and good news—a number of children will not now die of asthma attacks in school over the next five to 10 years, because those inhalers are in first aid kits. Instead of a mate lending one, it will now be a matter of simply getting it out of the first aid kit, which is good news.

We are seeing great examples of innovation and high-quality asthma care throughout the country, with health care professionals working tirelessly to improve outcomes. They are looking for a cure for asthma. There are centres of excellence, such as the Royal Brompton hospital in London, which provides life-saving specialist care for people with severe asthma—I hope I never have to visit the place. The UK has some of the best asthma researchers, changing the way we think about the causes of asthma. In my constituency thousands of GlaxoSmithKline scientists are working on managing the condition of respiratory diseases on a daily basis; they are leaping forward with the ways in which we can manage such conditions. I thank them all for their brilliant work.

I am sure the Minister is aware that we have some recommendations and questions for him. Shockingly, the NHS does not track its own performance on asthma care. Despite asthma being one of the most common long-term conditions in the UK, no robust data are available. We would like to see a national clinical audit for asthma. Will the Minister commit to supporting such an audit and raise the matter with NHS England? An audit has the potential to stop people needlessly dying from asthma attacks, to improve the quality of life for people with asthma and to reduce costs for the NHS significantly. Such audits are already well established for other long-term conditions such as diabetes.

There should also be greater investment in asthma research. Research into the treatment and care of asthma and other lung conditions is chronically underfunded compared with other conditions such as the other four big killers. The amount of money committed to researching asthma simply does not match the burden it places on the NHS. In spite of that, amazing breakthroughs are taking place and there is potential. Asthma UK is working with the European Asthma Research and Innovation Partnership to establish a new fund to research and develop asthma drugs, with the ultimate aim of finding a cure for asthma. Will the Minister meet me and Asthma UK to explore how the Government can support the European innovation fund?

A variety of asthma research demonstrates that many people have allergies. Of those who have asthma, 50% are more than likely to have some kind of allergy that causes an asthma attack—we call them triggers. We do not have the lung function or capability that those without asthma have, so we have to learn quickly what our triggers are and avoid them. One of my triggers is pets, so although I am 38 I have never had a pet, which is quite sad.

We would also like to see written asthma action plans. The Secretary of State for Health has made a positive commitment to ensuring that every asthmatic has a written asthma action plan, so will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have in place to achieve that commitment? Once someone has an action plan it helps to reduce the seriousness of their attacks, because they learn quickly to manage their own condition. It is a serious condition, and people have to work on improving things such as their peak flow. There are bits and pieces that doctors and asthma nurses do with asthma sufferers—we compete with ourselves to try to improve in our asthma action plan.

We believe that there should be world-class asthma reviews containing key components; that is an item that came up in the national review of asthma deaths. It could result in a nationwide improvement in asthma. A variety of organisations are ready to help to develop the idea and work with the Department of Health and NHS England to make it a reality. The national review found that many asthma reviews did not include key components—only 27% of people had their asthma control assessed, only 42% had an assessment of their medication use and only 71% had an assessment of their inhaler technique. People are using their inhalers in a variety of ways, and could be losing between 40% and 60% of the medication’s effectiveness if they are using them incorrectly, yet almost 30% of people are not being assessed on an annual basis on how they use their inhaler. That could reducing the effectiveness of their medication.

We would like the Minister to support the creation of a world-class asthma review and to encourage NHS England to get on and actually do it. We know that NHS England is working on an improvement programme for children’s asthma, and we would like him to commit to continuing to resource that project into 2015-16. We have already seen significant successes in secondary and tertiary care for children.

It would not be a debate on asthma without a call—I have to declare an interest here—for free prescriptions for those with asthma; all asthma sufferers would like that. People suffering from many other long-term conditions receive free prescriptions for their inhalers, but asthmatics do not. If asthmatics do not take their inhalers they end up in an A and E facility receiving oxygen, normally after an ambulance crew has transported them there, giving them oxygen on the way. That costs a huge amount of money.

My final point is that smoking is a contributory factor in more than a third of all respiratory deaths. The health impact of smoking on asthma sufferers is enormous, so I personally call on the Government to get on and do all they can to push forward standardised packaging for cigarettes as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing this debate.

Our respiratory health can be affected by many different things. I want to talk about an aspect that we often do not consider: allergic reactions that affect our breathing and can lead to a fatality. I will tell hon. Members a story about the eating of peanuts. I was unaware of the effects of actions that we take for granted on people who suffer from a peanut allergy until I spoke to my constituent Natalie, and I want to share her story with Members today. In Natalie’s own words:

“The last time I went in to anaphylactic shock it took about 3-5 minutes to make itself known—with each reaction this time will get shorter”;

that is what she has been told.

“I had some warning signs first. I always get a spot on my lip and an itchy tongue, so we went to buy some Piriton and on our way back I went in to anaphylactic shock. First I was just coughing—very weak coughs—and I think that lasted for a few minutes though I am hazy on the whole night. Then what I call ‘phase two’ moved very quickly, it felt like there was a lump in my throat, which it probably was as I was told later that I had hives (Urticaria) on my windpipe and this is what causes anaphylaxis. ‘Phase three’ moved even faster. I had to sit on the pavement as I couldn’t walk any further and I was trying to take control of my breathing. We rang the ambulance somewhere around phase three—I didn’t have an epi-pen because we didn’t know I was anaphylactic—the ambulance arrived very quickly but I was really light-headed by the time they arrived, I couldn’t see anymore and everything was white. My chest was so tight and it was so difficult to get any air in…it feels like being crushed by an elephant and only being able to breathe through a tiny straw. The ambulance men helped me up and gave me the nebuliser like what they give to asthmatics and by the time we got to the hospital I was feeling much better.

If I did have an epi-pen it would have given me around 30 minutes before the ambulance arrived but the reaction can start up again after the adrenalin wears off.”

As a result of that incident, Natalie came to me with a suggestion that I hope the Minister will take on board. She told me that on many occasions she has been in a pub where there are peanuts on the bar or has walked past peanut vendors in the street, and although that does not send her into full anaphylaxis, it makes her chest very tight and she has to remove herself. Some people have suggested to her that she should take antihistamines, but with the amount of allergens around that would not be wise, as if she accidently comes in contact with allergens, any antihistamines she has taken would block the warning signs and give her much less time.

Street stalls vending peanuts and pubs providing peanuts for their customers are things we take for granted and assume are harmless. Many people do not realise that simply being near peanuts can have a devastating effect on someone’s health. Will the Minister join me in calling for wider education and publicity about the harmful effects that being near peanuts can have on some people’s respiratory health?

Community Hospitals

Sheryll Murray Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her new position and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for securing the debate. I should also like to thank the Backbench Business Committee.

Community hospitals are really important in South East Cornwall. It is a rural constituency, and the two district general hospitals serving the area are located far away from my constituents. It takes at least an hour to travel to Derriford hospital in Plymouth, and those living at the western end of the constituency have to travel to Truro, which involves about the same travelling time. It is therefore important that patients and relatives can source many services from the two community hospitals in the constituency. One is in Liskeard; the other is St Barnabas hospital in Saltash, which is housed in a beautiful historic building.

When I met the Liskeard community hospital’s friends group, I learned that it had raised and spent more than £30,000 on equipment to assist the treatment of patients since the hospital was built relatively recently. I am proud of and grateful to the local community for donating so much time and effort to keep the hospital well equipped. This ultimately helps many local patients. The friends continue to work to raise money for up-to-date equipment to assist with patient comfort and diagnosis. I was fortunate enough to visit the hospital last summer and to see some of the brilliant equipment that has been provided by the league of friends.

I visited St Barnabas hospital in Saltash before the election, with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and have seen for myself the wonderful facilities that it has, including some operating theatres. They are not utilised to their full extent, however, and I should like to ask the Minister to ensure that such facilities are fully utilised, especially in rural constituencies such as mine.

Liskeard community hospital offers a number of in-patient beds, in addition to a minor injuries unit that is open every day, an X-ray department that is open from Monday to Saturday, and a range of out-patient clinics. St. Barnabas, in addition to the facilities that I have described which could be more fully utilised, offers a small number of in-patient beds and a day-case surgery. In addition, a range of out-patient clinics is held on site, and the minor injury unit is open every day. I believe that there is capacity for expansion at both locations. That would benefit patients living in my very rural constituency, which has limited public transport. I hope that the Minister will take note of this and ensure that as many services as possible are rolled out to our valuable community hospitals.