Musgrove Park Hospital Surgical Centre

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Stephen Barclay)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing this debate, and I am pleased to be able to join her in discussing a matter of great importance to both her constituency and her family. She powerfully set out her personal links with Musgrove Park and its importance to the community as a whole.

The Government recognise the real concerns—which the House got a full flavour of—about Musgrove Park and we are working to address the concerns that my hon. Friend set out. The hospital’s theatres and critical care facilities are housed in pre-war buildings that are at risk of critical infrastructure failure because of their age and condition, and she gave us a clear sense of the urgency of the need to respond to that.

It is clearly crucial that NHS facilities are as well maintained and up to date as possible. In this case, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that decisions should be driven by what is best clinically, what is best for the health service in the area, and what is of most benefit to the greatest number of people in the area. It is right that we address these matters at a level where the local healthcare needs are best assessed, rather than doing so solely in Whitehall.

The Government recognise that Musgrove Park Hospital’s theatres and critical care facilities need to be improved significantly, but that due to the foundation trust’s financial position it is unable to fund the improvements itself. The trust has therefore proposed to invest £79.6 million in the development of modern, fit-for-purpose operating theatres, a critical care unit and an endoscopy unit. The trust is bidding for funds made available through the sustainability and transformation plan capital bidding process.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust was informed that it was unsuccessful in its application under the wave 2 capital bidding process, but perhaps it will be encouraged by the fact that it was asked to develop a case with a view to submitting another bid under the wave 3 process, which is now under way. The latest bid submission process was announced in late December 2017 and closes on 31 January. The trust is being supported by the regional NHS Improvement team to ensure that it submits a comprehensive bid.

The Somerset clinical commissioning group has given its highest priority to the redevelopment of the surgical block at Taunton’s Musgrove Park Hospital. Running in parallel to the process for securing funding, the NHS Improvement regional team is supporting the trust to develop the business cases required for the development of the surgical facilities. I am pleased to learn that Musgrove Park Hospital’s surgical block capital bid has now been submitted and has received support, in principle, from NHS England and NHS Improvement, and will be considered for the next round of announcements for capital. Should its bid be successful, money will then be made available to start work on a new surgical centre at Musgrove Park Hospital. I join my hon. Friend in recognising that lead times for construction work are often very long. That is an area that I am keen for the Department to focus its attention on.

On the long-term plans for Somerset hospitals, the Somerset CCG is developing a clinical services review that will consider the views of patients before developing a series of service proposals with the aim of ensuring that family doctors and community hospital and district hospital services are joined up with social care services to provide financially sustainable and high-quality care. I know that my hon. Friend shares the Government’s desire to ensure that we take a more integrated approach to commissioning our services.

The Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust was rated as good by the Care Quality Commission in its December 2017 report. That is a tribute to the staff working there. It was rated as outstanding for caring, and rated as good for being effective, responsive and well-led. Surgical services are rated as good overall, having been rated as requiring improvement in the previous report. This followed action being taken to address and resolve issues with theatre safety and surgical site infections. NHS Improvement has no significant clinical quality concerns, and there have been no recent theatre or estate-related significant incidents. However, the latest CQC report mentioned that inspectors had heard of operations being cancelled due to the theatre environment and the air conditioning issues that my hon. Friend mentioned. This highlights the need for improved surgical facilities.

In closing, I recognise that Musgrove Park Hospital’s theatres and critical care facilities require significant improvement, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the manner in which she set out such a powerful case for that improvement. Somerset clinical commissioning group has given its highest priority to the redevelopment of the surgical block at Taunton’s Musgrove Park Hospital. I am pleased to learn that the hospital’s surgical block capital bid has been submitted and has received support, in principle, from both NHS England and NHS Improvement. Should the bid be successful, money will then be made available to start work on a new surgical centre at Musgrove Park Hospital. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that decisions should be driven locally, and I know that she is particularly focused on that.

In securing this Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend, as she so often does, has put the case for Taunton Deane. As the Minister responsible, I recognise the importance of the issue both to her and to the community, and I look forward to continued discussions with her as we seek to progress the situation and ensure the best possible care for Taunton Deane and the surrounding area.

Question put and agreed to.

King’s College Hospital

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Stephen Barclay)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone, albeit in a different role. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate and for the powerful case she set out on behalf of her constituents. I recognise the importance of King’s not just to her family but to the community she serves, to other hon. Members present, and more widely.

In her remarks, the hon. Lady drew out three specific points, suggesting that the Government have responded to this situation as if it had arisen suddenly, that it is reflective of other hospitals and that the roots go back to the Princess Royal decision in 2013. I will seek to address each of those in the course of my remarks, but at the heart of this matter is the concern that the board and King’s have lost or eroded the confidence of the regulator by the manner in which the deficit target has significantly deteriorated, and the concern that the cost improvements are an outlier when pitched against comparable trusts. That is really the crux of the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) brought the value of experience both as a clinician and as a former Health Minister. I was very taken by his remarks. Specifically, on the point he raised about the PFI debt, it is helpful to remind colleagues that support was agreed by the Department at the time, in 2013-14, for the additional costs of that PFI financing. That was taken into consideration by the board, which agreed to it at that point. It is not the case that the PFI has been a material contributor to the current deficit.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, although it is difficult for a board that has effectively had a merger foisted on it to appreciate fully how a hospital will run across two sites—or even three sites, with Orpington as well. I am sure the Minister will go away and think about that in the context of the PFI and whether something more could be done to help with the PFI debt.

[Stephen Barclay]

Indeed, I am happy to give consideration to the point my hon. Friend makes, although if one looks at the deficit for this year, which I will come on to in my remarks, one will see that the bulk of the deficit is not from the Princess Royal but from the other sites, so it does not pertain to the 2013 decision. I will come on to that more fully as I develop the case.

I will also say to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who recognised that the staff at King’s want to deliver, that I agree with her on that point. It is not about apportioning blame to those members of staff. Indeed, the financial special measures are about giving additional assistance to King’s to address those points, rather than seeking to blame them. I think there is a shared desire from both sides of the House to get the right outcome for King’s. I am very happy to agree with her on that.

It is a fact that King’s is a challenged organisation. We are putting a lot of effort into supporting it. King’s is receiving substantial financial support from the Department. The trust has received more than £100 million of support to maintain frontline services, the second-highest level of support to any individual trust across England. Placing King’s in special measures for financial reasons is a regulatory action to bring about swift improvement and address the trust’s financial challenges. NHSI is working with the trust to undertake a rapid review and agree a financial recovery plan.

Under the financial special measures programme, the trust will receive extra help and oversight, with the appointment of a financial improvement director. The organisation will also be required to draw up and deliver a plan to improve its finances, which NHSI will closely monitor. That will include support from peer providers where appropriate. On top of those special measures, NHS Improvement has also appointed Ian Smith as a new and experienced interim chair for King’s, to take control of the organisation’s position. He was appointed, as I am sure the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is aware, on 21 December and took up that role with immediate effect.

It is a fact that some profound financial issues at the trust need to be addressed. The trust agreed a budget deficit of £38.8 million in May 2017, yet just five months after the board had agreed that deficit it submitted a re-forecast deficit of £70.6 million, and a further two months later, in December 2017, the trust informed NHS Improvement that its current mid-case projection had worsened again to around £92 million. So, an agreed board position of a deficit of £38.8 million had within seven months gone up to a deficit of £92 million. That is really at the heart of this. When measured, that level of deterioration is an outlier, which is why the chief financial officer and chief operating officer both resigned in November 2017, and the chair resigned, as hon. Members have pointed out, in December 2017.

When announcing the financial special measures, Ian Dalton, the chief executive of NHSI, noted of other hospitals that

“none has shown the sheer scale and pace of the deterioration at King’s. It is not acceptable for individual organisations to run up such significant deficits when the majority of the sector is working extremely hard to hit their financial plans, and in many cases have made real progress.”

[Helen Hayes]

The extent of the financial challenge facing King’s is well documented, and I recognise the figures that the Minister quotes. However, he has not yet recognised the extent of financial savings that King’s was already making. It is not an organisation that had been resisting the need to make savings; it has been making, on average, double the level of savings of any other trust in the country. That points to a situation in which the level of resource afforded to the trust is simply not enough to deliver the day-to-day responsibilities of keeping patients safe. Will the Minister recognise the extent of the effort that has gone into saving significant amounts of money out of the trust’s finances?

[Stephen Barclay]

I am happy to recognise the hon. Lady’s point that significant savings have been made. However, the regulators found that there had been an over-reliance on non-recurring savings, rather than on delivering the cost improvement programme. For example, King’s has the highest cleaning costs per square metre, at £71, compared with the median of £41 per square metre. Indeed, in her remarks the hon. Lady talked about the cost of bringing in consultants such as McKinsey, which the King’s board itself brought in. The concern is the slow pace at which those cost savings and efficiencies have been delivered on the back of those reports.

The trust has also been in breach of its licence for financial governance since April 2015. That followed an investigation by Monitor in March 2015 after the trust was unable to resolve long-standing problems at the Princess Royal University Hospital, which it took over, as Members have pointed out, in October 2013. As part of Monitor’s enforcement action, the trust was required to produce and implement an effective short-term recovery plan and a longer-term plan to ensure that patient services were improved and that they were provided in a sustainable way for the future.

The trust does not routinely report its financial performance by site, but analysis shows that the trust confirms that the losses by service are across many services and across both main sites. As I remarked in my opening, while the deficits at the Princess Royal are proportionally, as a percentage, higher than at Denmark Hill, in absolute terms the majority of the deficit is at Denmark Hill. That speaks to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, who is not in his place, about the legacy from the Princess Royal.

The trust also faces a number of other challenges. King’s has not met the referral to treatment standard—RTT—since January 2015, at which point the board took a decision to suspend its performance data reporting. The trust resumed reporting of the RTT performance data again in March 2016. Following the deterioration in performance throughout 2016-17, NHSI undertook an investigation into the RTT governance and the drivers of the deterioration, which was completed in July 2017. An action plan based on recommendations from that investigation was subsequently developed by the trust and agreed by NHSI. Again, while the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood says that this is a sudden, late intervention by the Government, a chronology of action and support can be shown.

Taken together, these challenges are the reason why NHSI has invested a lot of time and effort in supporting the organisation. It has provided a member of staff on secondment to the trust for two days per week to support the delivery of the action plan and to strengthen governance around RTT performance and reporting. Delivery against the action plan is monitored by NHSI through its formal monthly provider oversight meetings with the trust, and it is working closely with the trust to agree an appropriate timeframe for the sustainable return to compliance.

King’s has received more than £350 million-worth of working capital since 2015-16, and was also successful in securing a £47 million capital loan in April 2017 relating to Windsor Walk. Along with other trusts, King’s has also benefited from £21 million of public dividend capital funding since 2013, covering many central programmes including cyber security and digital care. In the last three years, King’s has invested in new capital assets in excess of the level needed just to maintain their asset base and above the average across all foundation trusts and NHS trusts.

The Department of Health commissioned Deloitte to review the trust special administrator’s analysis of the split of South London’s deficit, pertaining to when the Princess Royal came within the trust, and to provide an updated view of the split of the forecast out-turn deficit for 2013-14. Its assessment of the Princess Royal University Hospital’s share of the deficit for the full year was approximately £22 million. The trust reported deficits in the three subsequent years, despite significant other integration cost and bridging support revenues. It brought in PwC in the autumn of 2014, and appointed a turnaround director to initiate a financial recovery plan process. The trust then had McKinsey in during 2016-17 to drive a transformation programme, which has been very slow to yield the significant benefits that were promised.

The trust has been subject to enhanced financial oversight since March 2017, which includes the following support from NHSI: a senior financial adviser embedded at the trust; monthly financial oversight meetings with NHSI; participation in the financial improvement wave 2 programme; and, since April 2017, the trust has also received dedicated support from NHSI’s transformation and turnaround team as part of its enhanced financial oversight. More recently, in 2017-18, the trust has had external support from PwC, Ward 20/20, and Bailey & Moore. We need to be clear about what has caused the recent problems at King’s, including its recent rapid deterioration, and what has not, but it is not a lack of support and consultancy.

The argument that the cause of King’s problems can be found in the merger with Princess Royal, which several Members raised as a contributory factor behind the subject of the debate, does not stand up to scrutiny. In October 2013, King’s College Hospital Foundation Trust completed a transaction to acquire Princess Royal University Hospital and Orpington Hospital on the back of the trust special administrator’s recommendations regarding South London Healthcare Trust. The trust also took over responsibility for additional services at Beckenham Beacon, Sevenoaks Hospital and Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup.

In the summer of 2013, King’s presented a five-year integration plan that showed small net surpluses of £2 million to £4 million in each year from 2013-14 onwards. The plan was assessed to be of medium risk by Monitor’s assessment team, but was none the less plausible thanks to generous support funding agreed by the Department of Health and NHS England at the time. The trust’s current financial problems reflect, as I said earlier, a continued overreliance on non-recurring savings, instead of delivering recurring benefits through cost improvement programmes and especially a failure to improve medical productivity at both the Denmark Hill and Princess Royal sites.

Model Hospital data, which is available to the trust, suggests that the trust has significant opportunities for efficiencies in areas such as orthopaedics. NHSI is supporting the trust to develop its cost improvement plan programme for 2018-19, which includes developing schemes based on validating those potential opportunities.

While there is never a single cause in such cases, and while we have acknowledged the pressures being felt across the system, the clear conclusion to draw from the evidence is that King’s was an outlier in financial terms and had lost its grip of its finances in recent months. I spoke with the trust’s chief executive yesterday and he acknowledged that there had been a serious problem with the trust’s financial planning process. Defects in the way the trust’s plan was put together eroded the regulator’s confidence in the trust, and it is for that reason that the trust has entered into special measures for its finances. The financial special measures regime has a proven track record of success in supporting trusts, as shown with North Bristol NHS Trust, which recently exited the special measures regime.

In losing control of its finances in the way that it has, King’s has effectively taxed others in the NHS, which is why it is right that NHSI took action in the way that it did. This organisation got itself into a very bad financial position and now needs a great deal of help and support. As the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham set out, we can agree on both sides of the House that King’s needs support. It is for that reason that the regulator has intervened to put it into special measures.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is not in his place, for bringing his experience to the debate. I am pleased that, having looked at the issue in some considerable detail when he was a Minister, he recognises, as the Minister seems not to, the problems that the merger of King’s with the Princess Royal and Orpington Hospital has caused for the trust.

The fact of the matter remains that the trust’s finances were stable and it was performing well on every measure until that merger took place. It has never been the same since. The combination of the drop-off in the increase of funding year on year, which has affected the finances at Denmark Hill and the organisation’s resilience to carry across costs to the Princess Royal and Orpington, with the irresponsible lack of a review mechanism for the funding settlement post-merger has, in my view, played a major role in destabilising the finances.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has been a formidable champion for King’s for more than 35 years. She knows very well from direct experience exactly how bad things have been in the past at Denmark Hill, and how close we are to seeing once again those terrible circumstances of patients waiting far too long in A&E to receive the treatment they need so badly.

In summing up, I want to highlight two points on which I disagree with the Minister’s analysis. First, notwithstanding the support that the Government are putting in, they maintain a punishing approach to the finances of NHS trusts that are in financial difficulty. A system for funding our NHS that takes a trust that is already under financial strain, fines it and charges it additional interest for failing to meet impossible targets is a system that makes no sense at all. A system for funding our NHS that funds on a block grant basis emergency admissions, the volume of which hospitals have no control over, and then cancels elective operations, which deliver the revenue into our hospitals when pressures come through the front door of accident and emergency, is a system that makes no sense. The Minister has not addressed that conflict and the perversity in the funding system for the NHS.

Finally, I urge the Minister to consider very carefully the need for substantial capital investment in King’s at Denmark Hill. I am concerned that when staff at King’s hear talk about failures in efficiencies, and when the Minister talks about the failure to improve medical productivity, the inference is that staff are somehow not working hard enough.

[Stephen Barclay]

To clarify, that is absolutely not the point. The point is about billing and how rotas are managed. It is not about whether staff are working hard or not. We very much recognise that they are.

[Helen Hayes]

I am grateful for that clarification, but that needs to be communicated very clearly to staff, who are feeling the pressure of this crisis. When we talk about efficiencies at King’s, they are in a lack of buildings, ward capacity and fit-for-purpose facilities to deliver when facing the challenges that are coming through its front door every single day. That matter urgently needs to be addressed as part of this turnaround process.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered King’s College Hospital finances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I welcome the additional £7 million of investment. Given that 65% of children in Fenland wait more than 18 weeks for access to mental health services, will the Minister write to me to set out how the additional investment will help rural communities in particular?

[Norman Lamb]

I would be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he welcomes the fact that, for the first time, we are introducing access and waiting time standards in mental health, including in children’s mental health. Until now, there has been discrimination at the heart of the NHS. Labour introduced waiting time and access standards, but it left out mental health. That was completely unjustifiable and I am proud that the coalition is correcting it.

Localised Health Care

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The new chief executive of the NHS was right two weeks ago to highlight the need to reshape the NHS around the priorities of patients, particularly elderly patients. As Simon Stevens pointed out:

“Two thirds of hospital patients are over retirement age.”

A solution to his challenge could be piloted in the perhaps unlikely setting of the Cambridgeshire fens, a rural area where we need clearer leadership in reshaping services in the way he articulated in that speech. Patients in North East Cambridgeshire continue to travel to hospitals for appointments that could take place in the community or even in their own homes. That would save them transport and parking costs, be less exhausting and more convenient, reduce the risk of secondary infections in hospitals and increase the likelihood that family and friends could support them throughout the pathway of their treatment.

In parallel, GPs are currently under considerable pressure in rural communities such as North East Cambridgeshire, where they are having to juggle the issues of accessibility, quality and affordability with the national challenge of rising demand, an older population and increasingly complex health needs. Yet GPs continue to undertake work that could be prevented through better use of other NHS resource, lightening our GPs’ workload and streamlining part of their workload through the use of equipment and better IT. However, too often the fractured lines of accountability in the NHS and the different tiers are getting in the way of the urgent need to localise health delivery outputs so that patients can receive treatment in the community and at home, rather than incurring journeys to hospital.

I want to start with a paradox. You may recall, Mr Speaker—perhaps with a shudder, as though it was a bad dream, rather than with the fond sigh of recalling happy memories—that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was debated extensively in this House two years ago. However, once legislation becomes law, there is a tendency for Parliament to assume that the job is done—that it has been implemented and that therefore nothing further is required. But if we look at the variance in performance of clinical commissioning groups—and, indeed, NHS regional teams—and how the 2012 Act has been implemented, we see that much work remains to be done.

At the heart of the 2012 Act was a great advantage to patients. It was about empowering GPs and clinicians, who best understand the needs of their local community and patients, to act as informed buyers on their behalf, to drive innovation, challenge existing practice, change behaviours and shift treatment from hospitals into the community. The danger is that the great advantage of that legislation, which was debated at great length under your stewardship, Mr Speaker, has now slightly slipped from focus, as the media caravan and the political debate move on to other things. We are at risk of missing out on the central prize, which is how better to innovate and deliver things in a way that advantages patients more.

I want to share three examples of where the current delivery of patient services appears illogical. The first concerns patients suffering from the distress of cancer—you will have them in your constituency, Mr Speaker—and facing tiring journeys to hospital. I had the honour of opening at St George’s surgery in Littleport last month oncology services delivered in the community by Addenbrooke’s nurses: instead of the patients travelling to Cambridge, the nurses come to deliver those services in a more convenient and friendly setting. But where is the drive to ensure that that model is now rolled out by Hinchingbrooke nurses into Doddington, by Peterborough hospital nurses into Whittlesey, by King’s Lynn nurses into the North Cambs hospital? Where is the urgency, while cancer patients continue to make those journeys at cost—in petrol, parking, tiredness and other ways in which their needs are not met? It is time that we accelerated that change to meet the challenge that Simon Stevens has set out.

Secondly, there is intravenous therapy—the delivery of antibiotics through a drip. You will no doubt be staggered, Mr Speaker, to know that patients in Cambridgeshire are being admitted to hospital for five to seven days simply to have antibiotics three times a day, when we could train community nurses to deliver that service in the rural community. That is not only a huge waste of money but, more important, we are putting patients at risk of secondary infections in hospital, as well as providing a less convenient service for them. When some areas of the country have shifted in that way, I cannot see any reason why it has not been adopted in Fenland in north-east Cambridgeshire. It is simply illogical that we still require patients to be admitted for such a straightforward treatment.

A third area is near-patient blood testing. Again, Mr Speaker, this will no doubt be an issue that GPs in your constituency have to deal with. If someone has a suspected blood clot, they are often currently put in an ambulance and sent to hospital. Yet for just £3,000, we could have machines in GP surgeries to provide the results straight away. It would not take that many saved ambulance journeys and the cost of admissions to hospital to start to pay that back. It might be that businesses in the community would be willing to work with the GP practices to deliver that equipment, but the leadership is not accelerating the roll-out of such an approach.

Next week, supported by my local papers—the Cambs Times, Wisbech Standard, Fenland Citizen and Ely Standard—I will launch a community campaign, identifying a range of issues, such as the three I have provided a flavour of today, in respect of which patients want these services back in the community to deliver better clinical outcomes in a more cost-effective way. It seems remarkable that this holy grail, sought by the NHS, is not being grasped with the urgency it demands.

In parallel, we need to recognise that our GPs are under significant pressure. Let me flag up three areas where innovation and reform are needed. The first is health trainers, which have been proven as a means of relieving and preventing pressure on GPs. Yet in Chatteris, Doddington and Manea—areas with significant health needs—we still do not have health trainers to relieve pressure on our GPs. The Minister will know that the National Audit Office highlighted how smoking cessation and other programmes have an important role to play in addressing health inequalities among different regions.

Secondly, I am sure you will be as surprised as I was, Mr Speaker, to discover that within Cambridgeshire the area with the highest health needs is the area that gets the least money. I defy anyone, including the Minister, to explain that. It is largely down to historical reasons and the fact that the clinical commissioning group needs to reallocate funding. The Cornerstone practice in March receives just £62.50 per patient. The county average is between £75 and £80, and the highest-paid practice in Cambridgeshire receives £120. I know that the Minister faces constraints in terms of the overall budget, and of course the Government deserve credit for the fact that NHS spending in England—unlike that in Wales—has been ring-fenced, but I think that the funding allocation needs to be examined.

Finally, let me say something about a much maligned Cinderella service. At present, 65% of the children in my constituency who need mental health services must wait longer than 18 weeks. I know that, as a clinician, my hon. Friend will recognise the seriousness of that. As he will appreciate, it can lead to self-harm and even to suicide, and can damage life chances by affecting exam results, for instance. Furthermore, there are still problems relating to the handover from adolescent to adult mental care. The issue of mental health simply must be addressed if we are to tackle some of the health inequalities in North East Cambridgeshire, and, above all, if we are to meet the challenge set by Simon Stevens in relation to the reshaping of our services. I know that the Health Committee is examining mental health provision, and I hope that it will take account of the points that I have made.

The Health and Social Care Act allows us to deliver the benefits that I know my constituents want by reshaping community health care. The chief executive of the NHS has recognised the need to use levers within the service—such as the assurance role of NHS England, and the role of clinical commissioning groups—to deliver that reshaping, and my campaign next week will demonstrate that patients themselves want that to happen. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to help the leadership to accelerate the innovation that is needed, so that community health care, which is currently languishing in the slow lane of change, can deliver the more patient-centred, localised treatment that will provide not only the best possible clinical outcomes for patients in North East Cambridgeshire, but the best possible value for money.

Care Quality Commission (Morecambe Bay Hospitals)

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. She is absolutely right to say that the biggest responsibility Ministers have when faced with such tragedies is to be open and transparent about the scale of the problems; otherwise, they will never be addressed. Let me put it this way: people who love the NHS and are proud of it are the people who most want to sort out these problems when they arise. That is why it is incredibly important that we are open and candid. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has stood up and criticised me in the media every single time I have given a speech drawing attention to some of the problems facing the NHS. He needs to be very careful every time he does that, because I will continue to do this, and I do it because I want the NHS to get better and believe it can be better.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

James Titcombe this morning spoke of ministerial pressure on the CQC. Further to the statement by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about full transparency and the fact that data protection should not be an impediment, will the Secretary of State have discussions with him as to whether, within the very narrow remit of the Department’s dealings over Morecambe Bay with the CQC, he will apply full transparency to his involvement in this issue?

[Mr Hunt]

I will absolutely do that, yes.

Health Inequalities

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important intervention, but we are not present as part of the blame culture. We are not debating what happened 10 years ago; we are talking about learning from the past and about how best to improve services. I am sure that the Minister will answer such questions, but I assure Members that I am not here to defend or not to defend, but to raise the issue, and to talk about what is happening in today’s terms and about why, what and how to improve.

The previous Labour Government committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. They made progress in meeting targets on infant mortality and headline indicators for life expectancy as a result of early intervention programmes and initiatives such as Sure Start. Reducing health inequalities is not only fair but makes economic sense.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman’s statement about the previous Government making progress. The gap in life expectancy between deprived and wealthy areas widened under Labour, and there were more GPs per head of population in wealthy, healthy areas and fewer in poor, unhealthy areas. Can he explain why?

[Mr Sharma]

We are trying to avoid getting into the blame culture or blaming the previous Government. I am sure that that gap of 9.6 years or whatever was an improvement on previous years.

[Stephen Barclay]

Will the hon. Gentleman—

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sharma]

It is unnecessary to debate that. My point concerns what is happening today; I am not rude, arrogant or avoiding the issue, but the debate is about what is happening in the system, and the purpose is to find out what steps the Minister can assure us are being taken to improve the situation.

[Stephen Barclay]

It is worth putting it on the record that the cross-party Public Accounts Committee, chaired by a Labour Member, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), looked at how in 1997 the Government were to put health inequalities at their heart and at setting targets in 2004, but those targets were not met. It is remiss of the hon. Gentleman to come to the Chamber today and to talk about the previous Government making progress when the gap in life expectancy increased, the GPs were in the wrong place and a cross-party Committee chaired by a Labour Member is saying that they failed to meet their targets.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for correction on that and I am sure that there are many other areas we could cover, but given the time available I want to complete my way of looking at the subject. He will have the opportunity, through the Minister, to talk about those questions.

Reducing health inequalities is not only fair but makes economic sense, as I said. Reducing such inequalities will diminish productivity losses from illness and cut welfare costs. My constituency is a diverse area with a high rate of deprivation and with about 19,100 children living in poverty. The impact on the health service is noticeable. The mortality rate is a lot higher than average, especially in the most deprived wards of the constituency. Diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and tuberculosis are much more prevalent than in the rest of the country, and they are unfortunately directly related to the social inequalities in the area.

The coalition Government have shown a lack of commitment to reducing health inequalities, whether through their health policies or their socio-economic policies which will increase inequality between the richest and poorest. Through the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Government have increased competition and opened up NHS services to tender from the private sector; if the section 75 regulations are pushed through the House of Lords tomorrow, patients with complex conditions that are perceived as less profitable will not be as readily treated by private providers. On top of that, the increase in private patients in hospitals after the lifting of the private bed cap will mean that access to beds for those who cannot afford private services will be restricted, increasing waiting times. In my own constituency, Ealing hospital will be downgraded and the A and E closed. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable people will therefore see the services that deal with their specific needs closed, and they will have to travel great distances, which they cannot afford to do, to get treatment.

Recent reviews and evidence have proved the link between health inequalities and wider social determinants such as income, employment, welfare and housing. The Government’s record gives us poor hope of progress in reducing those inequalities: fuel and food prices have gone up; increases in wages are less than those in the consumer or retail prices index, leaving people out of pocket every month; child poverty is increasing; homelessness is set to rise after the recent welfare cuts; and, as announced last week, unemployment is rising again. Those affected will only be more vulnerable to health difficulties, increasing the inequality between the richest and poorest in our society.

The Government need to commit themselves to reducing health inequalities to ensure that social background does not determine lifespan and quality of life. The previous Labour Government took some first steps towards reducing the health gap between the richest and poorest, but that progress is likely to be thwarted by the Government’s unfair policies. Can the Minister provide some reassurance from the Government that they are committed to reducing unfair and harmful health inequalities during their term?

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Gentleman said that he was keen to learn from the past. That is an admirable aim but, unfortunately and with great respect, he has rose-tinted glasses when looking back at the previous Government’s record. I will look at that record with no rose tint. The simple truth has been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), and despite the doubtless very best intentions, health inequality under the last Government got worse, notwithstanding their claim to have made it some sort of priority and to have put more money into the NHS.

[Stephen Barclay]

The last Labour Government took more than 10 years to introduce even basic known measures such as smoking cessation programmes in deprived communities, although the science and evidence base was clear. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not say one thing and do another on health inequalities, but will follow the science?

[Anna Soubry]

I can say that absolutely. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall asked whether the Government are committed to reducing health inequalities and making the sort of progress that we did not see in 13 years of the previous Government. I assure him that it is not just a question of blind intention, but an absolute fact that we have already done it.

[Interruption.] I am making a noise because I am removing the script of my speech. I am not good at following a script from my officials. They are extremely helpful, and it sometimes causes them concern that I go off script and speak off the cuff.

I am familiar with the Health and Social Care Act 2012. What the hon. Gentleman either does not know—this is not a criticism—or may have forgotten is that, for the first time ever, there is a statutory duty, not just on the Secretary of State, but throughout the NHS, to improve health inequalities. It is not a question of targets, which have not always delivered the right outcomes, and Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust is a good example, as was identified in the Francis report. That duty is statutory so the Secretary of State and all those involved in the NHS must deliver, and the Secretary of State must give an annual account of how his work in leading the Department of Health and being the steward of the NHS in England has delivered a reduction in the sort of health inequalities that we all understand. That is there in law, but in 13 years in government, the hon. Gentleman’s party failed to do that.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, with great respect, he does not understand that reducing health inequalities is not simply about saving an A and E department. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman is marching on Saturday, he will remonstrate with anyone who has a banner saying “Fight the NHS cuts”. Whenever anyone looks at reconfiguration, they do so on the basis of how to make the service better.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am sure that the Minister is aware that, on reconfiguration, bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons support specialised centres, because they save lives. The evidence from stroke services in London is that reconfiguration is saving around 500 lives a year.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, at the end of the last Labour Administration, only 4% of the NHS budget was being spent on prevention? It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to join marches, but prevention is far more helpful from a value-for-money perspective than treating things when they go wrong.

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend makes the point more ably than I can that much of the great work to reduce health inequalities is not about whether there is an urgent care centre or an accident and emergency centre within 500 yards or 5 miles of where someone lives. Work on public health is critical, and that is why I am so proud that this Government have increased the amount of money available to local authorities, which now have responsibility for delivering public health. They had that historically and we have returned that power to local level. That is important in the delivery of improvements in public health. This Government’s view is that local authorities, as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, know their communities better than Whitehall does. In the delivery of key and important work on public health, it is right and proper that local authorities have that responsibility. They, too, have a statutory duty to deliver on health inequalities. That runs through all their work of looking after the public’s health, but, most importantly, addresses those very factors that cause the sort health inequalities of which we are all conscious. For example, there is a clear demographic link between smoking and diabetes.

If the hon. Gentleman goes to Leicester, he will see the work that is being done there and in Leicestershire with the clinical commissioning groups—the GPs are now doing the commissioning—working for the first time with the local hospital and looking at a whole new way of delivering a better pathway not just of care, but of early diagnosis and prevention, linking those up in a way that has never been done before in the NHS. If he sees those examples, far from criticising the Government or having doubt about our commitment to health inequalities, he will take the opposite view.

If the hon. Gentleman needed yet further proof of the great work that can be done under the new way of delivering public health and commissioning in the NHS, he could do no better than take a trip to Rotherham in Yorkshire. I went there to see its fantastic work in tackling obesity. Obesity is a clear issue of health inequality and Rotherham has taken a totally joined-up approach. GPs are working with dieticians, schools and planners, with the local authority at the heart. They are all coming together to deliver a considerably better strategy, with real results in tackling the problems in that area.

On funding, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to understand that we have increased the amount of money that is available. It is now ring-fenced, on a two- year deal, so that real security and certainty is given to those local authorities. In some areas, we have increased up to 10% the money that is available to spend on public health.

Accountability and Transparency in the NHS

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

What happened at Stafford hospital was a betrayal of everything the NHS should stand for. We will face up to what went wrong and I will say more about that today. I repeat the apology to the families of people who suffered appalling abuse and neglect.

We must do more. People affected will be watching this debate and rightly wondering what it will achieve. They want to know what is going to change and when. The time has come for cross-party agreement on a way forward, and that is my hope for this debate. There must be more accountability and transparency, and that is why we support the motion.

We also support the Secretary of State’s ban on gagging clauses. It builds on statements made by the previous Government, which in turn were a response to previous scandals. That provides a crucial context for today’s debate.

In 1997 Labour inherited the job of responding to the Bristol heart scandal and the Harold Shipman murders. A series of major policy developments followed on patient safety, inspection and regulation. We passed the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, protecting whistleblowers. We published data that had never before seen the light of day on survival rates from heart and stroke care, and 1999 saw the first ever independent regulation of hospitals and care standards.

In 2001 we established the National Patient Safety Agency, which has sadly since been abolished and, in 2006, on the back of the public inquiry by Dame Janet Smith, the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council were reformed to end the professional closed shop. The truth is, however, that well-meaning as those steps were, there were places where the underlying culture of the NHS did not change and that is an important lesson for us all. When we make statements in this place and pass policies, we assume that everything changes on the ground, but it does not.

The previous Government made similar statements to that made by the Secretary of State today, yet the use of agreements persisted. Why was that? The answer is that there is a culture in the NHS—a tendency to pull down the shutters and push people and complaints away when things go wrong—that is more ingrained than we might think.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

On the subject of pulling down the shutters, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the world-leading expert, Professor Sir Brian Jarman, wrote to him in March 2010 listing concerns about 25 hospitals with high mortality rates, and that both the right hon. Gentleman and the Care Quality Commission took no action?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not. I was copied into an e-mail by Professor Brian Jarman in mid-March 2010 and, having asked the CQC to investigate what he had said, I wrote back to him on 31 March 2010. That was literally my last duty as Secretary of State for Health after the general election was called. I was not able to respond further to inquiries. It is important to provide some balance to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Changing the culture in the NHS requires vigilance and persistence. As Robert Francis says, we have all been too remote from the front line.

The foundation trust reform was a serious attempt to end the top-down culture in the NHS, bringing more accountability and transparency. If we look back, however, we will see that, when the centre stood back, there were places where an unhealthy local culture became even more firmly established. In some trusts a national top-down style was replaced with a local top-down, bullying style, which can be even worse. I can remember the shock I felt on reading the first Francis report’s finding that, on receiving FT status, one of the first things that the Mid Staffs board did was to resolve to hold more meetings in private. That was an audacious breach of the spirit of the legislation passed by this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I accept that progress was made in the collection of data and that the previous Government set up a star rating system. The problem, however, was what it measured. It did not measure the quality of patient care but basically focused on access targets. It was possible for a hospital to get a three-star rating by transforming its 18-week access targets, even at the expense of patient care.

[Stephen Barclay]

It is correct that improvements were made in the collation of data. In fact, the Dr Foster data were published in national newspapers from 2001, but what is remarkable is that they were not acted on. That is the central charge for Ministers. We were the world leader in the collation of mortality data. We had the data, but Ministers did nothing with them.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend speaks wisely. Hospitals display 1,400 different pieces of data, but the question is why nothing is done when the data give dangerous messages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I join other Members in welcoming the Government’s announcement today of a ban on gagging clauses, but is it not surprising that we need such an announcement? The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has just told the House that he issued guidance on this issue in 1999, and we also have the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and the 2004 guidance. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) even put these conditions in the NHS constitution, and yet we find that we need an announcement on the matter today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has been repeatedly assured that there is no problem. I raised the issue in some detail with Sir David Nicholson in the Public Accounts Committee on a number of occasions, and I was constantly told that there was no need for change, so does Sir David agree with today’s announcement? Indeed, is a change being announced? Will the Secretary of State confirm that this announcement covers all payments, including those through judicial mediation, and will it apply retrospectively?

There seems to be a striking uniformity as between both Front-Bench teams when it comes to telling us that Sir David Nicholson is a wonderful manager, yet he did not know about the high mortality figures—even though they have been published in national newspapers since 2001; even though his own staff were logging in to the Dr Foster data; and even though the figures were high when he was the chief executive of the strategic health authority that was responsible for Mid Staffordshire. He did not know about gagging clauses when he was the accounting officer; he did not know about fixing mortality codes, yet they are now subject to police investigation. As he told the Health Select Committee, he did not know about judicial mediation—a flaw in the system, yet he is responsible for system and controls. He did not know about the Gary Walker case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) says that she has concerns about the US reports, but once again, Sir David seems not to know about them. He did not know about the Royal College of Surgeons 2007 report into Mid Staffs, which raised serious concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is well aware, but in respect of which no action was taken. In other areas, too, we should remember that he was not just the accounting officer for the wonderfully successful NHS IT programme, but the senior responsible owner. We are told that he is a great manager, but it is difficult to see the evidence to sustain that claim.

[Mr Cash]

In a conference on 4 October 2012, I understand that Sir David Nicholson said that

“the senior leadership of the NHS and I was part of it in those circumstances”

but “lost the plot”. He continued:

“We lost the reason why we were there. We got so excited about…changes”,

but he went on to acknowledge that

“on ward 10 in Mid Staffordshire Hospital really bad things were happening”.

That is the sort of admission that he had to make in those circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree that that amounts to admitting responsibility for the system’s failure?

[Stephen Barclay]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and that does seem at odds with the Government’s welcome commitment to promoting individual accountability. In response to the Robert Francis report, the Prime Minister talked about three fundamental problems with the culture of the NHS. Of course that went beyond one individual.

I am concerned about the timing of the announcement of the appointment of Barbara Hakin, a close ally of Sir David Nicholson. It is important to note that she is innocent of any allegations being made against her, but I understand that she is under investigation at the moment. The timing of the appointment, then, seems strange. I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene to clarify whether he was told of Barbara Hakin’s appointment prior to it being made. If he was not told, does not that say something about the power that Sir David wields within Richmond House?.

A further issue is whether Parliament knows the quantum or scale of the payments made to whistleblowers. I have repeatedly raised this matter over the last two years and was finally given a figure of £15 million paid over three years—silencing quite a lot of people. It now emerges, however, that that is not the whole story, as it does not cover payments such as the one for Gary Walker, which was paid through judicial mediation.

As seen in the NHS manual for accounts, each NHS body or trust is required to compile a register detailing all special payments made, including those through mediation. As I understand it, even the Department of Health does not know how many such payments have been made—and that applies to the Treasury, too. In a response to my parliamentary question this Tuesday, the Minister said:

“Approval has not hitherto been required by the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Health for special severance payments made as a result of judicial mediation. However, as of 11 March”—

this Monday—

“approval will be required.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 182W.]

The position seems to be moving as of this week. Parliament does not know how much has been paid to whistleblowers, so will the Minister clarify when we will know?

In my Adjournment debate of a week last Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) asked whether the chief executive of Mid Staffs was subject to a gagging clause. We received a welcome reassurance that we would be given an answer, but when we were on our way to the Chamber for this debate, my hon. Friend told me that he had received none. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether Mr Yeates was subject to a gagging clause.

[Mr Burley]

Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr Yeates left in 2009 with an £80,000 pay-off and a six-figure pension lump sum before moving to a job with a charity called IMPACT Alcohol and Addition Services, based in Shropshire, and that he refused to give oral evidence to the inquiry because of a unique form of post-traumatic stress disorder? Where is his accountability?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right. Not only did Mr Yeates leave with, I understand, a significant payout, but he went to work for a charity that was in receipt of Department of Health funds. I think that as a matter of urgency we should clarify the terms on which Mr Yeates left the NHS, what Ministers knew, and what senior officials—in particular, David Flory—were aware of at the time of his departure.

I fear that we are in danger of sending a confused message to staff and families of patients in the NHS. On the one hand we say that the culture needs to change, but on the other we say that the people who are responsible for that culture—the people who are paid significant sums to lead it—should stay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is absolutely right: there is much in our NHS that we should celebrate and of which we should be proud. However, we do it a disservice if we are not prepared to identify where it is going wrong, and to be transparent about the areas with high mortality and about the existing culture which has a chilling effect on those who are brave enough to speak out. Is it not informative that the one person who spoke out at the Bristol inquiry, and who did so much good, is the one person who has never worked in the NHS again?

I think that the challenge for the House today, and in subsequent weeks, is to ensure that this time it learns the lessons that were clearly not learnt then.

Health Professionals: Regulation

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In the wake of the Francis report and the news that 14 more trusts are under investigation due to unnecessary deaths, it is clear that our current system of health care regulation has failed. More importantly, it means that the NHS has failed its patients, and that the Care Quality Commission is clearly not fit for purpose. I have seen documents that suggest that 25 hospitals with abnormally high mortality rates were highlighted to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) in March 2010. Seven of the 14 trusts now under investigation were on that list. He referred them at the time to the CQC, which confirmed it had:

“no current concerns about these trusts which would require intervention.”

Some of them, however, have had significantly high mortality rates for more than a decade. Sir David Nicholson tried to paint Mid Staffordshire as a singular case. Minutes of meetings imply that the concerns of patients’ families were dismissed as simply lobbying. Perhaps more worryingly, it appears there has been not just incompetence, but a culture of cover-up in the NHS.

Let me give just one example. Professor Sir Brian Jarman, a world-respected authority on mortality data, has raised with me allegations of trusts fixing their mortality figures. In essence, trusts relabelled deaths as palliative care after the definition was widened in 2007. Hospitals’ standard mortality rates would fall, as palliative care deaths were considered normal and not down to poor care. Experts suggest that a figure of approximately 4% of deaths should be classified in this way, yet at the Medway NHS Foundation Trust, one of the trusts now under investigation, it jumped to 37%, which suggests that in one month hospitals had been transformed into hospices.

The paper reclassification improved hospitals’ mortality score by approximately a third, yet nothing had actually changed on the wards. In other words, they were fiddling the figures and, as a result, were masking poor care. The same tactic was used by Mid Staffordshire to obscure what was really going on, and the number of deaths classified even now as palliative care across England is still higher than expected, and higher than in comparable international countries. That needs to be looked at urgently. Until that happens, we cannot be confident that the 14 trusts currently under investigation—seven of which, we were told in 2010, were not a concern—are all that we need to worry about.

Perhaps more distressing is that management consultants profited from masking the real causes of those deaths. The CHKS advisory group visited hospitals to advise not on how to reduce mortality and save lives, but on how to make the figures look more normal.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is a respected member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure he knows from his work on the Committee that target-driven culture, in whatever Government Department, can often lead to anomalies and inefficiencies. Is it not extremely worrying that the way the targets were framed in the case he highlights led not only to inefficiencies, but to actual loss of life? Would he suggest that this is not just a matter for the individual hospitals he has named, but for the entire target-driven process, which needs to be re-examined by the Government and the Minister?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The deaths, in part, came from a target culture. The targets were not set with that intention, but that was the consequence.

We have to ask about the people responsible for fiddling the figures to meet those targets. Between 2007 and 2009, the chairman of the advisory board at CHKS was Niall Dickson—not a doctor, but a journalist—and he is now the chief executive of the General Medical Council. Has the Minister reviewed the role of CHKS in advising hospitals on how to reinterpret death rates, and is someone involved in such an organisation the right person to be regulating doctors today?

Not surprisingly, following the Francis report, there has been a flurry of activity to explain what new systems will be put in place, but as an ex-regulator I know that such changes, while introduced in good faith, are likely to be flawed. If we are to ensure patient safety, we need a culture change. The ultimate regulator is a well-informed patient. The ultimate inspectors are whistleblowers on the ground. We need quality transparent data for patients to be able to make real, informed choices about where to be treated and how to hold the NHS to account. It is remarkable that a report last week found that two thirds of doctors and nurses at some hospitals would not recommend their own hospital to their family and friends. What does that say about the regulation of those hospitals? It is common knowledge among NHS insiders that certain doctors are good and certain doctors and surgeons should be avoided. Why should patients be kept in the dark about that sort of information?

Those involved in projects such as the Dr Foster unit at Imperial are world leaders in providing health information, and the decision to publish heart surgery outcomes was welcome, but the status quo does not go far enough. Data are available privately showing outcomes broken down by hospital, department, ward and even individual doctor. I urge the Minister to start to make those data public. They have never been published. Those in the profession know what they contain; it is time we trusted the public with the truth. Of course, they need to be presented in a meaningful way, but there is a duty to explain them, not hide them. We have seen with heart surgery what a positive impact such transparency can have.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the following point. We now have the safest heart surgery in Europe, partly because we have data transparency, but that is down to consultant anaesthetist Steve Bolsin, who exposed high death rates for child heart surgery. That information, which was published in Private Eye, led to a public inquiry. The publication of those figures has clearly driven up standards, yet the impetus for change was not the Department of Health or the Royal College of Surgeons, but a whistleblower who was prepared to speak up—incidentally, is it not revealing that he no longer works for the NHS?

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful and informative speech. Does he agree that what matters is not only ensuring that data are transparent for patient groups, but the quality of assessments, where we have seen a failure? Hospitals with obviously high mortality rates were deemed acceptable by assessors even before the fiddling of figures. Is that not partly because people not qualified to know the ins and outs of what goes on in, say, the operating theatre are going round, ticking the boxes and saying, “That’s all fine”, when in fact it is not? With the expert eye of another experienced clinician in the same field doing the assessment, very different outcomes would arise. It is because they have that knowledge and expertise that organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons have been commissioned to carry out reviews.

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is right. A lot of the people at the Care Quality Commission doing the clinical assessments are not clinically trained, and, even when they have a clinical qualification, it often does not relate to what they are looking at—for example, we might have doctors looking at baby units. Her point applies to coding as well: as seen in media reports last week, the people reinterpreting the coding are often not clinically trained.

Whistleblowers have a unique vantage point on what is happening with patient safety, but for too long we have hypocritically lauded their contribution publicly while silencing or gagging them in practice. The Commission for Health Improvement found problems at Mid Staffordshire back in 2002, a peer review of critically ill children by the strategic health authority criticised Mid Staffordshire in 2003 and 2006, and whistleblowers at Mid Staffordshire raised concerns as far back as 2005, yet the warning signs were not acted on. Many members of staff simply chose to close ranks. There appeared to be a bullying culture which discouraged people from coming forward, and those who did were threatened. One nurse at Mid Staffordshire summed up the position by saying:

“The fear factor kept me from speaking out”.

This is not an isolated case. It is almost beyond parody, but the Care Quality Commission, the body to which whistleblowers might turn, itself used gagging clauses. It disgracefully smeared Kay Sheldon, a member of its board. When she had the courage to speak out, it was suggested that she had mental health problems. That is the culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) pointed out during Prime Minister’s Question Time last Wednesday, three reports commissioned to mark the 60th anniversary of the NHS in 2008 which identified problems appear to have been buried. One of those reports, to Ara Darzi, referred to a “shame and blame” culture, and said that fear was pervading the NHS and at least certain elements of the Department of Health. Why were those reports buried?

Figures I obtained after a two-year battle in Whitehall showed that £15 million of taxpayers’ money had been spent over three years to gag whistleblowers. Why are we spending £5 million a year to silence those who are brave enough to speak out? We hide behind the guidance which says that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects them, but, as we have seen in the Gary Walker case, trust lawyers threaten and intimidate whistleblowers although they know about that protection. I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent letter, but I must point out that gagging clauses have no place in the NHS today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the House’s attention. Does he agree that, at a time when mortality levels in the NHS are the highest they have been for years, the restoration of public confidence in the service is imperative? What steps does he think the Government should take to ensure that it is restored, and people no longer feel that it is dangerous to go to hospitals in our constituencies?

[Stephen Barclay]

The answer is to tell the truth. Constituents come to my surgery—I am sure that that the hon. Gentleman has the same experience—and talk about going to visit a husband of many years and finding him naked from the waist down, or taking soup in to feed patients. They know the issues. Let us be candid. There are many wonderful things about our NHS, but let us not hide the failures and concerns. Let us not have a culture of cover-ups that silences the whistleblowers.

An official NHS circular from 1998 states:

“It is not contrary to the Department of Health’s policy for confidentiality clauses to be contained in severance agreements.”

Will the Minister ensure that that is scrapped? The letter from the Secretary of State does not force trusts to take such action, and I think it is high time that we made the position on gagging clauses clear and beyond doubt.

Regulatory failure across hospitals nationally shows the need for greater data transparency, so that we can see the true patient outcomes and protect staff who speak out. That will secure a higher-quality and safer NHS for patients across the board. We need to move the health service out of its cover-up culture and into the light, and to ensure that individuals are held to account. The Prime Minister has said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that applies on our hospital wards. It is best for us to have well-informed patients and staff who are able to voice their concerns. It is clear from what happened at Mid Staffordshire, at the 14 hospitals that are under investigation, and at the 25 that were drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State that concerns about those hospitals—along with the many other concerns that are being expressed around the country—have not been acted on so far. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that he will now speed up such action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

Indeed, and thank you, Mr Speaker. I will, of course, do my best to take as many interventions as possible, but my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will be aware that I have been generous so far and that the time allotted to Adjournment debates means that it is difficult to give as full an answer as possible to interventions. For that reason, it is useful to have some notice that an hon. Member intends to intervene.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the point clearly, as did Robert Francis in his report, that it was not for the Francis report to highlight individuals or blame them for what happened; the report was about ensuring that there was a clear acknowledgement that there had been systemic failure, which I talked about earlier. It was a failure of professionalism on the front line; a failure of the trust’s board; a failure of regulation and the regulators; and a failure of management at the trust. When systemic failure occurs, it is right that we put in place systemic solutions, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do later this month.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire made the key point that a real culture change was required, and that that is about having transparency and openness in the NHS. He is right to highlight those points. If we want transparency and openness, we need to look at some of the steps that have already been taken. We know that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which in theory gives protection to whistleblowers and people who want to speak out, has not been effective. Legislative approaches have not been enough to ensure that people feel free to speak out. Legislation has so far not been effective in creating that culture of openness and transparency that we all believe is necessary.

However, we have seen two things in the past six months that will make a real difference, the first of which is the contractual duty of candour, which will be introduced in the NHS for hospital trusts. It will mean that there is support for openness and transparency as part of the NHS contract. The second is the strengthening of the NHS constitution, which brings direct support to the cause of whistleblowers. Those things will be further strengthened in our further response later in the month to what happened at Mid Staffordshire.

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will now be changes for whistleblowers. I repeatedly raised my concerns with Sir David Nicholson in the Public Accounts Committee, so why did he continually tell me that there was no problem with the guidance or the legislation, and that adequate protection was in place for whistleblowers? The Minister is now accepting the need for change, but why did the chief executives tell me that there was no problem?

[Dr Poulter]

I say to my hon. Friend that the Department of Health has, like everyone who works for it, made it clear that gagging clauses are not and have never been acceptable in the NHS. There is a distinction to make between confidentiality clauses, which might be part of any financial settlement with anyone who works in either the commercial sector or the public sector, and a gagging clause. It is the duty of any front-line professional, according to and as part of their registration with the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council, to speak out when there are issues of concern. That is a part of good professionalism. That is what being a good professional is about. It is about someone saying that they recognise that there has been unacceptably poor care in a hospital or a care setting and that they have a duty, because they are a registered doctor or nurse, to speak out to highlight where problems have occurred. The point is that at Mid Staffordshire there was clearly a failure of that professionalism not only on the front line but at every level. Gagging clauses have never been considered by the Department of Health, certainly under the current Government, to be an acceptable part of the NHS. That was made very clear in a recent letter written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to NHS hospitals and chief executives.

Health Transition Risk Register

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I took the decision to veto the publication of the risk register, in justification of the Government’s view that it should not be disclosed, in December 2010. I am now making it very clear that I have put all the risk areas covered in the risk register in the public domain in the document that sets them out. The issue is not about the publication of the risk register now; it is about whether it was right to refuse its publication in December 2010. He knows perfectly well that that is the question and that is the judgment we made.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

If the position of Labour Members is that the ministerial veto should apply only to Cabinet discussions, is it not odd that the legislation they passed does not contain that description? Is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) spoke for the reality of government rather than the opportunism of opposition?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Blackburn is not here; I told him that I would quote from his evidence to the Justice Committee. I will therefore not attempt further to interpret what his view might be. I think that what he said to the Justice Committee was consistent with the view that those implementing the FOI Act should bear it in mind that there was an exemption for the formulation and development of policy, as my hon. Friend implies. There was not an exemption for Cabinet collective discussion; there was an exemption for the formulation and development of policy. In each case, we have to weigh the public interest very carefully. Clearly, there will be many circumstances in which the public interest in disclosure outweighs the necessity for there to be a safe space for private discussions about issues of risk. In this case, in December 2010 my colleagues and I were clear that it would have been wholly wrong, and disruptive and damaging, to the policy development process for the document to be published at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have recently made it clear that where there is unsustainable PFI debt—as is the case for seven PFI contracts—we stand ready to support those trusts in meeting some of those costs, which we inherited from the last Government. Beyond that, working with the Treasury, we have undertaken a pilot project that has demonstrated how 5%, on average, can be taken out of the cost of PFI contracts through the better management of them. I hope that will be applied across the country. I welcome, as I know my hon. Friend does, the way in which Northumbria Healthcare, with its local authorities, is looking at resolving its PFI debts, and if that represents value for money, I am sure that others across the country will benefit from the experience.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to develop more effective performance management of GPs.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

As set out in the Health and Social Care Bill, performance management of general practice will become the responsibility of the new NHS Commissioning Board from April 2013. This will enable, for the first time, a single, consistent approach to be developed for the assessment and management of general practice.

[Stephen Barclay]

As with any profession, the performance of GPs varies widely. As more power is devolved to GPs, does my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of independent performance management of GPs, in order to identify outliers and improve patient care?

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, given his past association as a constituency MP with this subject, because of the problems in his constituency. I believe that we have a strong system of general practice in this country, but I am afraid that more can be done to address variations in aspects of the quality of provision by some general practitioners. As I have said, the NHS Commissioning Board will adopt a single, consistent approach, allowing an overview of performance, which is not currently possible, and ensuring that interventions occur at an early stage. I think that will go a considerable way towards helping with the problems that have been experienced.