Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend has had meetings with my ministerial colleagues on that issue and knows that such decisions are made at arm’s length from Ministers by NHS England. The allocation for NHS Kernow is £1,235 per head and the average baseline clinical commissioning group allocation is £1,184 per head. However, I recognise that there are issues with rurality and the age profile of the population. That is why a fundamental review is taking place of the approach that ACRA takes.

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

In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), stated that circa £15 million in underspend was handed back to Public Health England by the now dissolved primary care trusts on Merseyside. Given that Liverpool has been identified as having some of the greatest health inequalities, will the Secretary of State guarantee that every penny of that £15 million will be spent in Merseyside alone?

[Mr Hunt]

What I can guarantee is that there will be a real-terms increase in the public health budget for all local authorities under a two-year settlement, which they did not have before. I hope that the information that was published this morning, which shows how cities that are comparable to Liverpool are managing to get better health outcomes, will help the local authority in Liverpool to improve its results.

House of Memories Programme

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Gray, to serve under your chairmanship, and to have the opportunity to discuss such an important issue so soon after the debate of the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) before the recess, although on that occasion it was discussed in a wider context. I want to explain why I chose to apply for a debate so soon after several debates about mental health conditions, including dementia and Alzheimer’s, in the main Chamber, which rightly highlighted the effects of such diseases and their impact on patients, families, carers, social services and the NHS. A benefit of parliamentarians debating such issues is that it helps practitioners in their determination to debunk the myths of Alzheimer’s and all forms of mental health conditions, and to alleviate their stigma. I make no apology for bringing the topic to the House’s attention again.

Colleagues will be aware that tremendous progress has been made in treatment to combat dementia-type illnesses with both clinical and non-pharmaceutical interventions that help to care for the condition or slow its onset. I want to use the time available not to rehearse what has been said about that previously, but to develop some of the details relating to an initiative that I first brought to the House’s attention during my contribution to a debate on 10 January 2012.

The innovative approach I mentioned then was the House of Memories project in Liverpool. There was interest from right hon. and hon. Members when I explained the benefits of that approach, and the project has merits that could easily be rolled out throughout the country. The best thing—the Minister will be pleased to know this—is that it would not cost the earth. Instead, it would undoubtedly save the NHS millions of pounds in the long term. I will give a brief overview of the project before coming to the crux of why I was so keen for the Minister to come to the Chamber today.

National Museums Liverpool has developed a sustainable partnership with care providers through a connection to local histories, objects and archives at the world-class Museum of Liverpool. The House of Memories project is described by experts as a

“tailored dementia…training programme, which uses artistic interpretation, curatorship,”

museum education

“and reminiscence therapy techniques to raise awareness of the condition, and enable professional health services, carers and families to help those directly affected live well with dementia.”

The project demonstrates how a museum or, by association, a library, arts centre or theatre can provide the health and social care sector with practical skills and knowledge to facilitate access to an untapped cultural resource simply by using their local treasures and art work. Such work is vital when considering that mental health issues in elderly people will not go away. In 2010, more than 700,000 people living in England were diagnosed with progressive symptoms, including loss of memory, mood changes and problems with communication and reasoning. Such symptoms occur when the brain is affected by certain diseases, including Alzheimer’s, and by damage caused by a series of transient ischaemic attacks, or mini-strokes as they are known. A staggering 21 million people in the UK are estimated to know someone with dementia, and one in three people aged over 65 will have dementia by the time they reach the end of their life. More than 86,000 people in the north-west alone are currently diagnosed with the condition.

National Museums Liverpool has recognised that museums are experts at recording and caring for people’s memories and treasures, whether they are thousands of years old or within living memory. A net result of the project has been the way in which the House of Memories project has encouraged the medical profession to consider new approaches and alternatives to established practices and therapies. We know that health care and medicine are evolving, but in Liverpool we have found that some of the components to assist patients’ well-being have been under our nose all along.

Developing new strategies is not easy, and the first phase of the project, which was funded by the Department of Health in 2011, was designed in consultation with Skills for Care, the Alzheimer’s Society and the local voluntary sector. Together, the partners informed a real-world training experience to connect the care sector with National Museums Liverpool’s cultural resources. The House of Memories project has not only achieved a high level of attendance from across the wider health sector but sustained that engagement.

The outgoing Liverpool primary care trust identified that the project met and exceeded the need to make Liverpool a city that supports greater health and well-being for all residents. More recently, Liverpool city council has recognised the project as a key driver of its age-friendly city ambition, and the Department of Health has expressed interest in expanding the project across southern regions. That demonstrates the thoroughness of the model. Not only have National Museums Liverpool’s staff dedicated much time and energy to ensuring that the health and social care side of the model is catered for, but it has a strong business model that stands as a leading example for other cities and towns to follow on a larger or smaller scale to suit their needs.

The current project was delivered in the Liverpool city region, Manchester and the north-east, including Newcastle and Sunderland. To date, more than 3,000 health and social care professionals have participated, and I see no reason why Parliament should not give a commitment today to an ambitious target for the number of health and social care professionals exposed to this leading training to increase exponentially in the next few years. I would welcome an opportunity to work with the Minister to facilitate that eventuality.

External evaluation of the House of Memories project makes impressive reading, and the feedback is available for hon. Members to view on its website. If the Minister has not had an opportunity to read it, it would be good if he did so. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and noted that the project increased awareness and understanding of dementia, and helped participants better to understand those living with the condition in a way conventional training has not been able to do to date.

I hope that I have demonstrated that in Liverpool we have begun the process of changing the culture of how we view those living with dementia, but there is more to do, and it is vital that the Minister recognises the economic impact that such projects have on NHS finances. Early intervention and targeted treatment that uses local resources have the potential to save the NHS millions of pounds. Instead of dealing with the condition in its latter stages, which is not only expensive but heartbreaking for patients and carers, we should ensure that any prevention or delay in its development is made a priority, and that those left to treat the condition are afforded appropriate training to deal better with its effects.

The British museum sector holds great collections of arts, artefacts and archives, as we would expect, but people would perhaps not normally associate it with playing an important role in the dementia arena—that is, until now, hopefully. There are other models to study: for instance, the Museum of Modern Art in New York runs an internationally acknowledged programme, where gallery staff engage with individuals living with dementia and their partners and families in conversations about modern art. However, the House of Memories project is qualitatively different from MOMA’s programme. It provides guidance for engaging people living with dementia and their carers in the museum experience, supporting that with a toolkit and resources such as a memory box.

One of the great success stories has been National Museums Liverpool’s ability to position House of Memories as a credible and important tool for dementia awareness, as its greatest challenge was to gain acceptance and support from the health sector by developing a learning tool that would be accessible, both creatively and intellectually, while acknowledging the real-world challenge of supporting people to live well with dementia. No one can be in any doubt that NML has been totally successful in achieving that ambitious recognition. One way that I and my fellow Merseyside MPs can ensure that the partnership keeps making progress is by continuing to raise awareness and by ensuring that the relevant Minister is constantly updated with the continued success of the House of Memories’ innovative work. I will, of course, ensure that I do so.

I am pleased to report that the project continues to receive a positive regional response and has secured additional health sector funding until 2015, which will include the development of an online digital tool for carers and families. I urge the Minister to outline what further support he can offer to the development of that capability. I am sure that Members of all parties will recognise and appreciate the innovative work of the staff at the Museum of Liverpool, and I should like to take the opportunity to praise each and every one of them. It should be noted that the Museum has also recorded an increase in visits from care home staff and patients. Cultural partners, such as Riverside housing, have taken inspiration from the training by developing personalised, culturally sensitive memory boxes for the Chinese and Afro-Caribbean communities, which exemplifies the social value of greater dementia awareness for the whole of Merseyside.

We are not talking about brain surgery; the concept is simple. I went to the museum to look at one of the sessions, and because it was in Liverpool, a lot of people were interested in football, of course, and music and comedy. The memory box, therefore, has such things as football programmes from Liverpool or Everton football clubs, ration books, some old tunes and records, and old theatre programmes, and those stimulate conversation with people. The long-term memory of most sufferers is very good. Short-term recollection is a problem for many, but those props really get people into conversations and act as a prompt for all sorts of detailed discussions, and—it must be said—for friendly banter from people who find it very difficult at times just to have an ordinary conversation. Liverpool’s aim is to make the project fully available across the constituencies of right hon. and hon. Members.

National Museums Liverpool would like to work in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health to lead the development of a house of memories resource in every town and city across the United Kingdom. That would create an opportunity for greater co-operation between Whitehall Departments and it would provide continued cultural innovation for health and social care, hospital and social housing settings. That is vital when we consider that all Departments and partners have been widely encouraged to support the Prime Minister’s national dementia challenge.

I ask the Minister to allow the professionals with a track record of success in Liverpool to help him implement similar projects across the country. Given the positive response from the health sector, I believe that if the Minister commits today to sustaining the ongoing work further with logistical support and funding, National Museums Liverpool will deliver significant outcomes and opportunities for a sustainable cultural and health sector partnership in communities across Britain. I do not doubt that in other parts of the country, the cultural sector is making strides towards improving the relationship between the arts and dementia treatment. However, I have yet to see a more comprehensive project, with a greater level of success, than Liverpool’s House of Memories. In other words, NML has set the national standard, and it has set the bar very high.

I wish to conclude by asking the Minister the following questions, which I would be grateful if he could address either in the time we have left today, or, for those that he cannot, in writing afterwards. Will he inform Members what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport over the potential long-term economic benefits of supporting the House of Memories? If he is yet to have those discussions, will he commit to doing so this side of the spending review? Will he indicate whether his Department will support the House of Memories project further in 2013-14 and onwards? Will he meet Dr David Fleming, the director of National Museums Liverpool, and me at the Museum of Liverpool to discuss the work that we are doing on Merseyside, and to witness first-hand the positive impact that it is having on dementia patients in our city?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. I remember his speech in the Chamber during the debate he referred to earlier. He talked passionately about the House of Memories initiative in Liverpool, and I think I am right in saying that he also spoke about his mother’s battle with dementia, so I know he cares a lot about this issue. I am keen to work with him and to talk to him further about how we can maximise the benefits of such an approach.

I should also refer to another institution in Liverpool—Everton football club. I am not sure where his loyalties lie in that great city, but Everton have done great work on reminiscences and dementia. I have had people from Everton come to the Department, together with other representatives of football and sport. The hon. Gentleman talked about long-term memory and the power of reminiscence, and sporting memories can be incredibly valuable in bringing people back who are suffering from dementia. I am absolutely with him on that.

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for mentioning Everton football club and the Everton in the Community project. During my visit to the museum, Everton were represented, and they had their football reminiscence material there. It does exactly what the Minister has outlined, and stimulates conversation like nothing else because of people’s memories of great moments in their lives. Some of those will obviously be sporting-related, and that could be part of what the House of Memories project is about.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have been asked to give my own footballing memory, and it is Jeremy Goss scoring a fantastic goal away at Bayern Munich. Norwich City were for a long time the only club that had beaten Bayern Munich away. I am looking to see whether we can extend the work of Everton to other premier league and football league clubs, because they have a powerful position in their communities and can be opinion leaders in developing these ideas powerfully in their communities.

I am wholly supportive of the House of Memories. It is an exceptional project that has been funded in part, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the Department of Health; more than £220,000 has been allocated during the last two years. As we have heard today, National Museums Liverpool provides an innovative training programme that is making a real difference for social care staff by helping them to connect with the people with dementia whom they support every day. They use the objects that the hon. Gentleman referred to and the stories linked to the museums’ collections. Museums across the country have a rich collection of objects and art that can be so powerful in helping people to live well with dementia. It is a very powerful partnership with care providers. I think the hon. Gentleman said that 3,000 care workers had already participated. That demonstrates the reach of this project. It is fantastic that the cultural sector is involved in work on dementia; it is a great collaboration. Getting the medical profession to consider new and different approaches beyond pure medicine can be very powerful. The work to which I have referred is critically important in supporting our drive to create more dementia-friendly communities.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the value of early intervention and the savings that can be secured for the NHS in this way. My understanding is that the money from the Department of Health has already helped to roll out this approach to museums across the north of England. There is a funding application in at the moment for 2013-14. That is being considered by the dementia work force advisory group. It could extend the roll-out to museums and galleries in the midlands. I think the decision on that will be communicated to National Museums Liverpool over the summer. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that application, but clearly, as I have said, I am wholly supportive of this project and keen to work closely with the people involved to develop this initiative and concept further.

There are 670,000 people in England with dementia. That number is increasing year on year, as is the £19 billion cost to society of dementia. Faced with that, the Prime Minister launched in March last year the challenge to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which builds on the dementia strategy the Labour Government initiated in, I think, 2009. It is a powerful and good initiative and was one of the first globally to be developed. This condition is the biggest fear for people over the age of 55—as someone who has just turned 55, I am acutely aware of that.

A year on from the launch of the Prime Minister’s challenge, dementia remains a priority for the coalition Government, for their partners in health and care and for me personally. The House of Memories was I believe referred to in the updated report on the Prime Minister’s challenge last November, so its effect has been recognised. In the first year, we have achieved a lot, not only laying the foundations for delivery but making progress across all three areas of the challenge: first, improving health and care services for people with dementia; secondly, creating more dementia-friendly communities, where this work can play such a valuable role; and thirdly, the importance of research and committing more resources to research into finding cures and prevention mechanisms for dementia. That is creating a momentum that will lead to real improvements in the lives of people with dementia and their carers.

For the first time, there is a quantified ambition to increase the diagnosis rate for dementia from the current 45%, which is far too low. Our aim is that by 2015 two thirds of people with dementia should have a diagnosis, with appropriate post-diagnosis support. We are also seeing real action on the creation of dementia-friendly communities, with 50 areas expressing an interest in becoming dementia friendly. An awful lot is going on in Liverpool, and I do not know whether the city as a whole is exploring that, but clearly there is good leadership in that city.

The launch of the Dementia Friends initiative has already captured the imagination of thousands of people, and the number of people attending the awareness sessions is growing every week. I participated in a session in Warwick in April, so I have become a dementia friend—I have the badge to show it. If the hon. Gentleman has not done that yet, I encourage him to do so and, indeed, I encourage others to take up that challenge locally.

The UK will use its presidency of the G8 to identify and agree a new international approach on dementia research. A specific G8 dementia summit will be held in London in the autumn. It will bring together Health and Science Ministers alongside world-leading experts, senior industry figures and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The event will look to secure more co-ordination and collaboration on dementia globally. I suspect that initiatives such as the one from Liverpool could play a part internationally, through this G8 process, in teaching other countries about what could be learned from them.

A skilled work force is vital to delivering compassionate care for people with dementia. That is why we are taking forward work to ensure that we have front-line staff who are capable and competent in dementia care. The Department of Health and NHS England are working closely with Health Education England to put in place a forward work programme for the delivery of the work on dementia set out in their mandate. That includes ensuring that 100,000 NHS staff have undertaken foundation-level training on dementia by March 2014, so that they can better support people with the condition. A new e-learning package has been published that will lead to 100,000 nurses and health care assistants receiving dementia training via e-learning by 2015.

In March, the Department launched a new nursing vision and strategy for dementia care that sets out what is expected of all nurses in order to meet the level and quality of care expected in all settings. In social care, the dementia pledge builds on the care and support compact by supporting social care employers to develop their work force’s understanding of dementia and to adapt their services to meet the needs of people with dementia. More than 900 care providers have already signed up to the pledge and almost 150 to the compact.

The hon. Gentleman asked one or two questions at the end of his contribution. In the spending review discussions, the focus on and the priority that the Government give to dementia will remain central to our thoughts in ensuring sufficient funding to maintain the momentum we are starting to build. As I said, in this Parliament we are building on the last Government’s strategy through the Prime Minister’s challenge.

I confirm again my absolute support for the House of Memories initiative. I want to maintain the liaison and collaboration that has been developed in the last year or so. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of meeting in Liverpool, which I would love to do if time allows. My diary is a complete nightmare, but if it is possible I will be very happy to do that. I certainly want to do all I can to ensure that the valuable lessons learned from this exciting and imaginative initiative, bringing together two sectors, are learned elsewhere, so that people with dementia really benefit from it.

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to preventable cardiac deaths arising from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

I shall explain the slight typographical error in the motion in a second, but Mr Amess, you will have to excuse me if, at times, my throat is a little raw; that, and my slightly delicate disposition when standing or sitting, can be explained by the fact that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) took part in a charity bike ride from Salford to Liverpool yesterday for the Love Leah charity. We are both suffering, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

I thank colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hear my application on behalf of the Oliver King Foundation and for providing time in the busy parliamentary schedule for what I hope will be a preliminary debate, with a full debate in the Commons Chamber before the summer recess. Today’s motion enjoys the support of 65 MPs from seven different political parties and every region of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg)and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), have expressed their disappointment at not being able to be here in person, but they send their full support.

I will use my introductory contribution to set the scene and set out a number of specific areas. Today’s debate is the result of the sterling work by the OK Foundation in setting up an e-petition that attracted more than 110,000 signatures. That is no mean feat—getting 100,000 people to sign any petition is impressive, and it shows the dedication of those involved. I would like to place on record my gratitude to the family and friends of Oliver King, to Councillor Jake Morrison, to Dr Zafar Iqbal of Liverpool FC and to the many committed volunteers who have worked tirelessly to support the OK Foundation’s campaign. It is true to say that we would not be here today were it not for their outstanding efforts.

Unite the Union, the GMB, and the National Union of Teachers have also pledged support for the campaign, and I thank them for their very welcome backing. I also thank our local radio stations and in particular Pete Price and Tony Snell for all they have done to raise awareness of the OK Foundation’s relentless campaign, and to Marc Waddington of the Liverpool Echo for his comprehensive coverage of the issue.

I know colleagues will talk in more detail about the OK Foundation, but I would like briefly to pay tribute to the parents of Oliver King, who have used the tragic death of their beloved son as a mechanism to achieve what they hope will be a lasting and inspiring legacy. Oliver was just 12 years of age when he died of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. He excelled at sport, but his family were totally unaware of his condition until they received the tragic news of his death in March 2011. Quite simply, Oliver could have been saved if an automatic external defibrillator had been to hand. However, despite their utter devastation at the loss of their child, Mark and Joanne decided to try to prevent other parents from having to go through the same heartache that they had, which has led them here to Westminster and today’s debate, and to their request for the Government to act.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not only for allowing me to intervene, but for securing the debate. A moment ago, he mentioned a number of hon. Members who could not be here. May I take the opportunity to do something for my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who cannot speak in the debate by virtue of being a Government Whip? She has a constituency case that mirrors the one the hon. Gentleman describes—that of Joe Humphries, a 14-year-old who died on a training run last October. The tragedy for the family is indescribable, but his father has set up the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust, and a community launch will take place at Rothley parish church on 13 April. I know that they will draw a great deal of comfort and support from the words of the hon. Gentleman and from this debate, and they will know that this House is deeply concerned about this sort of tragic incident.

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his contribution. Until I did some research, I did not realise what a huge problem SADS actually is. I drew out some statistics, which I will share with the Chamber: some 250 people die every single day in the UK as a consequence of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome or one of its counterparts, and some 270 schoolchildren die in British schools from SADS each year. The disease kills more people in Britain every year than lung cancer, breast cancer and AIDS combined; it is an absolutely huge issue, and it is fantastic that the OK Foundation has brought it to our attention in Parliament, because Oliver’s story is like that of any of the 60,000 SADS victims across the country each and every year.

The debate is crucial to raise awareness of the condition. We as parliamentarians have to date not done enough to address people’s concerns. I hope the fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary is in his place and will be responding for the Opposition demonstrates just how seriously we are taking the issue. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for meeting campaigners in recent months, which is something that the Health Minister has refused to do so far.

I will briefly outline what sudden arrhythmic death syndrome is—or SADS, as it is known.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he just said in more detail? I am very concerned if he is saying that any Minister has refused to meet campaigners. If that is the case, I assure him that it should not be. I certainly do not have any problems with meeting anybody. I know that some people turned up at my constituency office unannounced on a Sunday morning, which was not very helpful—obviously, I was not there—but I am quite happy to meet any campaign group on the issue.

[Steve Rotheram]

It is fantastic that the Minister has agreed to meet campaigners. Some are here, and if she has time at the end of today’s debate, I am sure that they would be happy to spend a few minutes trying to organise something more substantial in future. I am sure that people will welcome what she has said.

SADS is a term that is used to describe a group of medical conditions that lead to sudden, unexpected and life-threatening instability of the heart rhythm. It has also been commonly referred to, as it is in the motion, as sudden adult death syndrome, but given its propensity to strike in children, it is now often referred to simply as sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. In the majority of cases, the unstable heart rhythm—the arrhythmia—develops a rhythm called ventricular fibrillation, in which the ventricles, which are the main pumping chambers of the heart, lose all rhythm and regularity and start beating at rates in excess of 250 beats per minute. Ventricular fibrillation causes sudden collapse, seizure-like activity and cardiac arrest—in other words, the total loss of heart function—but if it is diagnosed quickly and if cardiac massage and shock from a defibrillator are applied, normal heart rhythm and signs of life can be restored.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has just touched on the importance of speed in an emergency, and I wonder what level of knowledge, understanding and expertise would be required of a member of the public to be effective in an emergency and to use the defibrillator to the best effect?

[Steve Rotheram]

All I can tell the hon. Lady is that if I can use a defibrillator, anyone can use one. We had people come into the House to demonstrate what an AED does. I was under the illusion that it was like something out of an episode of “Casualty”: someone picks up two paddles, says, “Stand back—clear,” and applies the shock to the person through that method. It is not like that. An AED is a small computerised unit that talks someone through the process, so believe me, literally anyone can use one. That will destigmatise the use of these devices for certain people who think that if they do it wrong, they will cause further complications.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a first responder who on a number of occasions has had to attempt resuscitation. Defibrillators are indeed incredibly easy to use. One of the saddest things is turning up at someone’s house and finding people just standing around, worried or frightened that if they attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they will cause more damage. Actually, the training that is necessary is minimal. I therefore commend not only the e-petition, but the words of the hon. Gentleman up to now. This is something that is very simple. It is so sad to turn up two or three minutes in and find that people have not started CPR, at which point the chance of survival is so much less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

I will highlight some of the statistical evidence relating to what the hon. Gentleman says, but if nothing else, if we can debunk the myth that we will do damage if we try to intervene and that the use of defibrillators will cause complications, that will be a start. The campaigners who have come here today do not believe that this is the end of a process; rather, it is the start of the momentum that they are building to ensure that this issue is more widely recognised.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. He will share my sadness at the death last week of Eleanor Murphy, who was the mayoress in Barrow last year and who, along with her husband, the mayor, was able to raise £40,000 to buy 20 new defibrillators to be placed around Barrow. Does he agree with me that a great tribute to her life and their effort would be to encourage more firms and shops to agree to have defibrillators on the outside of buildings, which was their big cause towards the end, so that if someone collapses in the street, people do not need to go inside a shop, which might be closed, to be able to save their life? The Co-op is a particular example.

[Steve Rotheram]

Absolutely. What campaigners, or indeed anyone who is sensible enough to understand that we are in times of austerity, will say is that it is not for the Government to do everything. The example given by my hon. Friend of £40,000 being raised and the example of the OK Foundation, which has put defibrillators in all Liverpool schools, and of other organisations that are doing sterling work, prove that this is a partnership. This is something that charities can help with, but it does demand action from the Government.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Will he join me in congratulating small communities such as Lockerley in my constituency? I learned on Friday night that there is a defibrillator in the village hall, and I was told at a meeting there of, I have to say, predominantly quite elderly people that the instructions for the defibrillator were very easy to understand. They made exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: the machine talks people through the process.

[Steve Rotheram]

Yes. Certain people expect us, as parliamentarians, to know everything about everything, but actually we do not know an awful lot about an awful lot. I hope that if it does nothing else, today’s debate and the publicity that will be generated through the campaigners will ensure that people are aware of exactly the point that the hon. Lady raises.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend, to the OK Foundation and, indeed, to the Backbench Business Committee. He mentioned that the OK Foundation has funded every primary school in Liverpool to have a defibrillator. Does he agree with me that that sends a powerful message throughout the country that that policy should be adopted in all our schools?

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend and city of Liverpool colleague will know that where Liverpool leads, others often follow. The hope is that other people will recognise that what Liverpool has done is progressive. It has been done with the help of the mayor of Liverpool, the city council and, of course, the OK Foundation and it will demonstrably save lives. We do not know when that will happen, of course, because we do not know when someone will have an attack, but at some stage, that provision will save someone’s life. That will be a tremendous legacy of all the work and campaigning that the OK Foundation has done.

What is perhaps even more heartbreaking than the sudden loss of life, if such a thing is possible, is the sudden loss of life when it is avoidable. There is a quick, simple and extremely effective device that can save lives. The treatment will not cost millions of pounds in research or development, nor is it a procedure that people require a medical degree to administer. Instead, it is as simple as first aid training in schools and defibrillators in public buildings.

At this point, I declare an interest: I unashamedly want there to be a defibrillator in every public building, in much the same way as there are fire extinguishers and fire alarms in every building. As the London Ambulance Service pointed out in its briefing for today’s debate,

“56 people died in London from a fire in 2011 compared with 10,000 Londoners who suffered an out of hospital cardiac arrest—yet fire extinguishers are statutory in every building—and defibrillators are not”.

We have them here in Parliament. If they are good enough for us in Parliament, they are good enough for every other public building.

I will shortly come on to the main argument with regard to my desire for defibrillators in public buildings, but before I do that, I am keen to touch on another element of tackling SADS: screening. Three young people die each week from SADS, and in more than half of the cases the cause is a genetic problem affecting the heart. I believe that targeted expert assessment of families in which there is a high risk of inherited cardiac disease or in which there has been a sudden unexplained death will lead to a considerable decrease in the number of SADS victims annually. No one is claiming that that is a panacea; it is simply a vital step in the diagnosis of those most at risk.

I praise organisations such as Cardiac Risk in the Young, which is subsidising screening for young people, ensuring that those who believe that they need an ECG—electrocardiogram—can afford one. The OK Foundation and others are also doing that, but screening should be more widely available.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that Liverpool leads the way. He will be aware, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will be aware, because we were both at the same event, that Liverpool John Moores university does an enormous amount of work on the screening of young sportsmen. A huge amount of work is being done and it is being done, again, in Liverpool.

[Steve Rotheram]

Again, I could not agree more. John Moores and other universities have done fantastic work. I looked at some of the material from the Football Association. It runs the association football medical screening programme for youth trainees, which involves the screening of 750 youth players. The International Olympic Committee has recommended that all countries screen their athletes to minimise the risk of SADS. That indicates the benefits of screening, so let us look at an early intervention strategy for at-risk groups as an initial step.

Even in the past week, it has been pleasing to see the Football Association and the British Heart Foundation form a £1.2 million fund to ensure that 900 defibrillators are made available to clubs in non-league football and the women’s super league. That is real action that will make a real difference, but although it is encouraging that sport has woken up to this condition and recognised what I would term its social and moral responsibility, there is more work for the medical profession to do and more support for the Government of this country and our partners across the developed world to give.

A simple ECG can expose whether a patient has irregular electrical or structural problems with their heart that can lead to SADS. Currently, however, standard cardiovascular risk assessment screening is not as precise as it needs to be in identifying symptoms relating to sudden cardiac arrest, which is why the British Heart Foundation is undertaking vital research into the genetics around SADS, on which it hopes to publish a report shortly. In the meantime, the Government can play a leading role in encouraging pathologists and coroners who determine that a person has died of SADS to inform immediate family members to ensure that they receive an ECG at the earliest possible opportunity. The Government should also support the medical industry’s work to improve the scientific precision of screening. Such Government measures should form part of the proposed new national strategy to improve heart safety and reduce preventable deaths from sudden cardiac arrest, as set out in the motion.

I hope that today’s debate and any subsequent debates will achieve a number of things, but it is pivotal that the imperative relationship between CPR and defibrillators is exposed: a defibrillator on its own cannot save a life; CPR on its own has an outside chance of saving a life, but the two together have a more than 50% chance of saving a life. How do we know? Ask people such as Fabrice Muamba. His collapse on a football pitch, in front of thousands of spectators at White Hart Lane and millions watching on television, was perhaps the most graphic illustration of SADS, and his recovery is the best example of what can be achieved with swift and targeted intervention.

Bystanders witness more than half the cardiac arrests that occur in public, but not enough people have the life-saving skills to help those heart attack victims. CPR is the first action in the chain of survival and is crucial in the first minutes after a cardiac arrest, because it helps keep oxygen moving around the body, including the brain, which is why the British Heart Foundation campaign tells us to phone 999 and press hard and fast to the beat of “Staying Alive”. It is a simple message, which works, and we have all seen it on television. CPR essentially buys a patient time. A defibrillator starts the heart, but cannot be used on a still heart, so unless CPR is administered, a defibrillator is effectively useless.

That point is crucial, and is at the heart of—forgive the pun—why colleagues and I, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, chose to include first aid in today’s motion. Medical experts believe that CPR combined with a defibrillator shock can triple the survival chances of somebody who has suffered a cardiac arrest outside hospital. I shall repeat that: it can triple survival chances. That is extraordinary. CPR and a defibrillator shock can buy paramedics time to arrive, prevent serious brain damage and ultimately increase the chance of a full recovery. I am not sure that there is any need for further debate. If someone’s child or loved one had a cardiac arrest, would they not want to triple their chance of survival?

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I add my sentiments to those expressed already on the wonderful work that the OK Foundation and the King family have done. I pay tribute to South Central ambulance service, which does wonderful training in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is tremendous that community organisations have invested in equipment and training in their localities, a benefit of a national push, such as that that we had with digital hearing aids, is that it drives down the cost of equipment and training, no matter who pays for it? It is important to get across that message about why we should put more oomph behind such work.

[Steve Rotheram]

It is an excellent point, which I will mention later in my contribution. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If we persuaded the Government, Government bodies, large organisations or a combination of people to purchase AEDs, the price would plummet because they would order in bulk. I think they are £1,200 to £1,500 per unit at the moment, but empirical evidence from other countries shows that, when they are purchased in large volumes, their price comes down to almost 40% of the original cost.

Finally, I shall address directly what the Government can do to help, and it is simple: legislation. It can be done in a controlled and progressive manner and, in the current economic conditions, it need not cost the earth. Legislate first in education: enshrine mandatory emergency life skills training in the curriculum; ensure that every child who walks out of school at 16 or 18 possesses life-saving skills, and ensure that this Parliament, here and now, commits to having a new generation of life savers. We have the support to do it. Will we need to come back with another 100,000 signatures to get the Government to act? According to a British Heart Foundation survey in 2011, 86% of school teachers agree that such skills should be part of the curriculum, 78% of children said that they wanted to be taught how to save someone’s life in an emergency, and 70% of parents thought that children should be taught emergency life skills in school. When we place emergency life skills education in the context of my earlier point about the relationship between CPR and defibrillators, we begin to see just how many lives we could save daily, monthly and yearly.

The Government, though the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, should introduce legislation such as the Canadian province of Manitoba’s Defibrillator Public Access Act. In Canada, public consultation and medical expertise identified the most likely places for a person to suffer a cardiac arrest—apart from in hospital, of course—and legislated to ensure that all those buildings, such as gyms, football stadiums, golf courses, schools and airports, had to have an AED fitted by January 2014.

There is also a financial argument: fitting AEDs could save the NHS millions of pounds, because survivors would not need the same degree of critical care or, potentially, aftercare. To discredit further the myth that it would be too expensive, let us once again put it into context: a defibrillator costs about the same as a PC and if we put AEDs in public buildings, that cost will come down, as the hon. Lady identified, as it does for other equipment ordered in bulk.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. It occurs to me that he said earlier that there are defibrillators in this building, but I am ashamed to say that I do not know where they are. I do not know if I am alone in that. It is important therefore not only to have them in buildings and for people to know how to use them, but for people to know where they can be found. There is no time in an emergency to wonder where one is—everybody needs to know.

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Lady is right, but there are people who know where the defibrillators are. On behalf of the OK Foundation, I asked a few police officers. We are very cosseted here. People such as police officers and other security staff know where the defibrillators are. She is right in that, just as there has to be a chart that says where the fire extinguishers or first aiders are—where someone can get treatment should they cut themselves—the same process should apply to identifying where the nearest AED is. It is not beyond the realms of Parliament for us to pull together legislation to cover the good point she raises.

I know about the costs associated with AEDs. The Association of Primary Schools and the OK Foundation said that every primary school in Liverpool should have one, which would be a considerable benefit. They have now got an AED, which they purchased together, fitted in each school. Pinehurst primary school in my constituency was the first to benefit, but now all 122 primary schools in the city have AEDs. As I said earlier, where Liverpool leads, the rest of the country needs to follow, because AEDs will save young people’s lives. We need to make that happen across the whole country and encourage our devolved partners to follow suit.

I conclude by reiterating why today’s debate matters. We cannot put a price on a life. If something practical can be done that has the ability to save a life and falls within what we politicians might call the envelope of affordability, we in Parliament have a duty to act. In times of austerity, when we look for ways of saving money and reducing the burden on the NHS, investing in screening research and equipping an entire future generation with emergency life-saving skills that will keep people alive, increase survival rates and reduce the demand on hospital care is a step we should all support. Every minute that goes by after a person has suffered a cardiac arrest reduces their survival chances by 10%. Although CPR can keep the heart going, it is not enough in itself. Britain should aspire to achieve survival rates such as those in Seattle, where more than 50% of sudden cardiac arrests lead to a full recovery. Our survival rate is currently somewhere between 2% and 12%.

Now is the time to act and for Parliament to say, “Enough is enough.” Now is the time for levels of screening of young people to increase, for teaching CPR to be mandatory in schools, and for the Government to initiate a new legal requirement for a defibrillator to be installed in all schools and prominent public places. We need a cohesive national strategy to improve heart safety in the UK. I hope that Government Front Benchers are listening. They have the political authority to address the issue. Let us hope that they have the moral fibre that is needed to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for the intervention, but it rather makes my point. Once we stipulate, for the sake of argument towns of 30,000, we can imagine that in the towns without that level of population people will think, “Well, we’re all right, so we won’t do much work on it.” That is the problem with a more prescriptive approach.

While we are discussing ambulance services, and referring again to the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I wish to set the record straight on the East Midlands ambulance service. EMAS has been struggling for some time, with a number of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with. As mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has been involved in a campaign following the death of Joe Humphries, who did not live in her constituency but went to school there. As a result of her work, for which I am grateful, Leicestershire has 109 static defibrillators in public areas, 14 of which were installed in partnership with the Leicestershire police, and there are 24 Heartstart schools in the county.

The hon. Member for Bolton West also talked about the Heartstart scheme and its success in her area, although I can see that that may not be the case universally throughout the country. What is happening because of the debate, however, is that not only are we holding it and everything is being recorded in Hansard, but I will certainly go away and not hesitate to have that conversation with the relevant Minister in the Department for Education. An extremely forceful message has come out of this debate about the need for such training to be included in the national curriculum. I could not possibly give my own views on that, but the argument has been advanced extremely strongly and it has much merit and power.

[Steve Rotheram]

I was not aware that the Minister is an anti-legislationist parliamentarian.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), off the top of his head, suggested a population of 30,000 as a starting point. It does not matter whether the threshold is 30,000, 25,000 or 50,000; basically, there has to be a starting point. Even if the threshold is 30,000, once automatic external defibrillators are in place, they are there for life, and we can then start to concentrate on places with fewer than 30,000 people. We could do that for large factories or organisations before we go to the small ones. There is no magic wand and provision will not happen overnight, but we need to start somewhere.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is good and is well made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate on behalf of the campaigners, and obviously I thank the campaigners, who have made a long journey in certain cases to come to Parliament today to hear what we have been saying and what the Minister has been saying. Can I just pick the Minister up on one point? It is very important to some people here; we have a doctor and other medical staff here. She continually made reference to heart attacks; I think that what she meant was cardiac arrests, which are a very different thing.

[Anna Soubry]

Sorry.

[Steve Rotheram]

I just wanted to put that on the record.

Many excellent points have been raised in the debate. What we have seen demonstrated during the past three hours is the clear and absolute desire for Parliament to act. I understand that the Minister has a difficult job. There are obstacles and challenges to overcome in relation to cardiac arrest and SADS, including raising awareness and overcoming people’s initial fear of helping someone who has sustained a cardiac arrest. The hope is that this debate will have teased out some of those things.

We have also heard about a number of issues that are not directly relevant to the Minister’s remit, so she may well have to have conversations not just with the relevant Education Minister, but with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and certainly with the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to the planning issues. However, that does not mean that she or the Government can abrogate their responsibilities. As has been highlighted, some of these things are cost-neutral; they just need action. We are not asking for money or, at worst, they cost very little. They simply require political will.

A few weeks ago, after the debate was announced, I received numerous phone calls and e-mails from organisations and charities that have been campaigning for years on this issue, so it is only right that they receive recognition for their efforts. Therefore, in praising again the efforts of the OK Foundation, I would also like to pay tribute to SADS UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the London Ambulance Service, Hearts and Goals, the Arrhythmia Alliance, the North West Ambulance Service, AED Locator, the Community HeartBeat Trust, Kays Medical and Liverpool football club and the great Steven Gerrard, the England captain, who has also recently come on board and lent his support—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is shaking his head.

There is growing momentum for action, and campaigners will not give up on this issue until progress is made. Including first aid training in the school curriculum would take up 0.2% of the timetable, but have an incalculable value.

[Andy Burnham]

Can I add my own tribute to the organisations—most of them—that my hon. Friend has just listed? Obviously, we do not doubt the Minister’s good will, but I think that we will have been disappointed by the response, particularly on the issue of legislation. With that in mind, may I encourage my hon. Friend to return to the Backbench Business Committee and make a request to bring this issue to the Floor of House? It seems to me that Parliament might take a different view from the Government on the need for legislation. I think that we should try to test the mind of Parliament on this issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be put off and will pursue his campaign in that direction.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that I think that, following the discussion that I will have immediately after this debate, the next step will be for us to push the Backbench Business Committee for a further debate in the main Chamber so that we push this issue to a vote, because I genuinely believe that defibs will save thousands of lives every year. No one in their right mind doubts that, so it is for the Government to show their resolve and to back the campaigners. A national lead is needed on this issue. We have not been given that today, so we will push in the future for that lead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to preventable cardiac deaths arising from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

Dementia

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Nothing I say will equal the power of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon)—a personal account that I am sure will resonate far beyond this place. I congratulate members of the Backbench Business Committee on choosing this important topic for debate and praise the spirit in which Members in all parts of the House have engaged with issues of dementia.

This topic is particularly close to my heart. Anyone who has watched helplessly as a loved one battles with dementia, often forgetting your name and your relationship to them, knows the agony that is felt and the feeling of hopelessness. As people will know from their own experiences, it is all the more painful when it is a close relative, especially when, as in my own case, it is your own mother who is suffering from this cruel condition. Words cannot begin to describe the heartbreak of seeing a vacant expression etched across the face of a person once so full of vibrancy as they struggle to fathom what is going on or why they feel in such a strange state of confusion.

As I was coming to terms with my own mum’s condition and the fact that this condition had stolen her mind, I was left with the same unanswered questions that thousands are now asking: why was she not diagnosed earlier? Why did not my brothers, sisters and I recognise the signs earlier? Why was there not better advice on the different treatments available? Why was the support that she received from relevant authorities at best patchy but at worst totally inadequate? My mum was not lucky enough to have had the expert advice, care or treatment that is available today when she died.

We can ill afford to kick social care into the long grass and avoid the realities of an ageing population that will undoubtedly present challenges for dementia health care professionals in future. With no new treatments having been released on to the market for 10 years, it was right for the Prime Minister to guarantee money for research by the Alzheimer’s Society following the work of the national dementia strategy presented to this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and rightly highlighted by the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in his opening speech.

Today I want to talk about ways in which the city of Liverpool is sourcing innovative treatments for dementia. It is estimated that the number of people in Liverpool with dementia will rise from 4,382 in 2010 to 5,209 in 2021, ranking the city third highest in the north-west. Alarmingly, of those in Liverpool who were suffering from dementia in 2010, only 51% had actually received a diagnosis. That means that almost half of our city’s dementia sufferers were unknowingly living with this debilitating condition. That is why in our city we have decided to tackle dementia head on as part of Liverpool’s decade of health and well-being, which was officially launched in 2010.

Although most hospitals treat dementia patients by using a group of medications called—I wrote this down earlier thinking it would be easy to deliver in Parliament— cholinesterase inhibitors or the drugs donepezil and memantine, in Liverpool we have tried and successfully tested the use of art and culture in dementia treatment. Our non-pharmaceutical approach to dementia treatment is a unique model and one that other cites and regions across the country may wish to follow as they cope with increasing demand on decreasing resources.

After Liverpool’s highly successful year as the European capital of culture in 2008, we worked with international partners to collate evidence that proved that art and culture have the potential to improve well-being and have a positive role to play in mental health care.

Museums and art galleries are the gatekeepers to history. They play a crucial role in society, which is to protect and preserve what has gone before so that we can learn for the future. During our evidence-gathering we received a report entitled, “Museums of the Mind”, which encouraged museums to think about the role that they could play in their local communities with regard to mental health issues more broadly. National Museums Liverpool recognised the growing problem with dementia in our city and decided that it wanted to work specifically on the issue, drawing on the expertise of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which ran an internationally acclaimed programme where gallery staff engaged with individuals living with dementia. And so House of Memories was born on Merseyside.

The scheme is training and delivering programmes built around the objects, archives and stories held in the Museum of Liverpool. The idea is to provide social and health-care staff with new skills and resources to share with people living with dementia and to promote and enhance their well-being and quality of life as a potential alternative to medication.

As the total cost of dementia to the UK economy rose to a staggering £23 billion in 2012—a figure that is unsustainable in an age of austerity that has been extended to 2017 by this Government—the work of National Museums Liverpool is a blueprint for other cities and regions to follow as we look to improve dementia care and reduce the cost to the NHS. As always, however, funding pressures are endangering the future of such innovative programmes. I believe that Liverpool’s non-pharmaceutical approach can and should be adopted by other cities and regions in the United Kingdom, thereby saving millions of pounds for the NHS.

One of the most worrying aspects of dementia care is the fact that public awareness of dementia remains scandalously low and that we as a society almost ignorantly allow dementia to be excused as nothing more than the ravages of old age. Liverpool therefore began by drawing together a partnership of major businesses from a variety of sectors that went beyond health care professionals and included many organisations from our thriving cultural sector. This meant that Tate Liverpool, the Bluecoat and the Liverpool biennial festival worked alongside Liverpool universities, Age Concern, BBC Radio Merseyside, the police and fire services and charities such as Dare to Care and Crossroads Care.

Last year the decision was taken by Liverpool Hope university, in conjunction with the chief executives and managers of Liverpool city council, the Alzheimer’s Society, NHS Merseyside, Mersey Care NHS Trust, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust and Age Concern Liverpool and Sefton, to dedicate 2013 as the year of dementia, as part of Liverpool’s decade of health and well-being.

Liverpool’s ability to make a difference for dementia patients would not be possible were it not for the excellent work of the Alzheimer’s Society. When I was the lord mayor of Liverpool, I chose the Alzheimer’s Society as one of my five sponsored charities and was extremely proud to award it with its largest ever cheque at that time of £115,000, in recognition of the vital work it does in our city.

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly innovative speech about developments in Liverpool. He mentioned the Alzheimer’s Society. Does he agree that without the drive, commitment and imagination of the Alzheimer’s Society, we would not be seeing the current progress and momentum?

[Steve Rotheram]

My right hon. Friend is right. It is not until somebody who is close to you needs the support of services such as those provided by the Alzheimer’s Society that you understand just how good and supportive they are. When I gave the Alzheimer’s Society that money as lord mayor, I also gave money to Alder Hey children’s hospital. It is much easier to raise money for sick children than for people whom some others see as just getting a bit old and going a bit loopy. That was one of the accusations against my mother. People said, “She’ll be okay, she’s just losing it a bit!” That is not the same thing as dementia. That is why it is important to raise awareness of dementia and why it is fantastic to see that this debate has been so well subscribed to.

In Liverpool, the Alzheimer’s Society facilitates services for dementia patients that use art and culture to assist sufferers and their carers in better understanding the condition. For instance, dance therapy is offered which invites

“movers and shakers of all ages to come and enjoy themselves and shake off the shackles of dementia”.

Additionally, multi-sensory stimulation is provided through art therapy and music therapy, which stimulate emotional, social and cognitive connections between dementia patients, their carers and their families. There is also a memory clinic, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), in Walton in my constituency, which is a weekly meeting that offers support, advice and guidance to sufferers and their loved ones.

In other words, Liverpool is dedicated to a creative approach to stimulate rather than medicate dementia patients wherever possible, and to prolong their quality of life as much as is possible. I hope that Members will use the example set by Liverpool to encourage similar partnerships across the cities, towns and communities in their regions. A recent participant in National Museums Liverpool’s House of Memories scheme recalled a lesson that they had learned as a member of the programme, which MPs may wish to consider on leaving this debate:

“The House of Memories scheme has enabled me to come into the world of the person living with dementia, rather than expect them to enter mine. After today, my approach will be very different.”

By changing the emphasis of dementia treatment to a more pioneering approach such as the one successfully tried and tested in Liverpool, we can begin to change the stigma of dementia and improve patients’ lives. In doing so, we can aim to educate sufferers about the advantages of owning up to the problems that they face and improve the rates of early diagnosis, while at the same time ensuring that the wider public are more aware of the early signs of the condition. Only then can we, as a society, forgive our collective ignorance and really begin to support our patients and dedicated carers in tackling this country’s fastest growing health priority.

NHS Commissioning Board (Mandate)

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I will happily look into the matter the hon. Lady raises, but my information is clear that the budget through which the clinical networks are funded is increasing.

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

In priority 4—dementia—the Secretary of State states that the NHS Commissioning Board is mandated to ensure that the best treatment and care are available to everyone, wherever they live. Can he guarantee that there will be no postcode lottery, and that people with dementia in Liverpool will get the same treatment as the best in the rest of the country?

[Mr Hunt]

There is an element of postcode lottery now—there is a huge and unacceptable variation in treatment throughout the country—but the structures we are putting in place have a much better chance of reducing that variation than what went before, which failed to reduce it.

National Health Service

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the next matter to be debated on this Opposition day, namely the Government’s record on environmental protection and green growth.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Who could neglect the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)? We will deal with his point of order first.

[Steve Rotheram]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like some clarification from you because I do not know the answer to this question. When two of my constituents went through the Cromwell Green security check area, they were searched and photographed, obviously, but then a piece of paper they had with them—a pensions petition signed by the staff of Four Oaks primary school—was taken from them. When they asked why, they were told it was a security risk. Can you clarify what might have been meant by a piece of paper being a security risk? Were staff frightened that somebody might get a paper cut?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given advance notice of his intention to raise it. I have a fertile imagination but it is stretched to the limits by an attempt to discover what on earth could be the problem here. The hon. Gentleman and others will know that some items are considered out of order for bringing into the House, but I cannot imagine why this would fall into that category. I think it only right to say that I will have a conversation and look into the matter. I know that the staff of the House always do their best, but my instant reaction is that I cannot imagine why it should have caused offence. Moreover, I cannot, off the top of my head, credit the idea that constituents of the hon. Gentleman’s coming to the House would cause offence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. How much funding he plans to allocate to local authorities to perform new public health duties in each of the next four years.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. How much funding he plans to allocate to local authorities to perform new public health duties in each of the next four years.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Through the Health and Social Care Bill, we will give local authorities the powers and resources they need to improve the health and well-being of their local populations and to improve the health of the poorest fastest. To support planning by local authorities, I will later this year announce shadow allocations for 2012-13 for the local ring-fenced public health budget.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Secretary of State explain whether reforms outlined in the public health White Paper “Healthy lives, Healthy people” allow for a new formula for public health spending that sufficiently compensates deprived areas that have higher health needs, such as Liverpool?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, it is certainly our intention that that should happen. The consultation on the structure of the health premium, which does not close until 31 March, is specifically designed to secure responses so that we can design the health premium to support local authorities in delivering the greatest increment in health improvement among those populations that currently have the poorest health. We will also continue to get advice from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation so that that is technically supported by the best advice.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Appropriately, I am wearing a black tie today both to acknowledge the fact that many people have died because of contaminated blood products before they had the opportunity to see a full debate on the subject in this Chamber, and to pay respects to a constituent of mine, James McVey, who died tragically at the weekend at the age of just 18. His death is not related to this issue, but I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House would want to join me in sending our condolences to his family and friends.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this long-neglected issue firmly back on to the political agenda. It is to our great shame that it is necessary to have a debate on it so long after the original events, and it is an indictment of previous Administrations that many of the issues surrounding the contaminated blood disaster remain unresolved to this day.

The case for making adequate reparations to the victims and their families has been eloquently made both today and on previous occasions in this House and in the other place. However, I have never heard a more stirring description of the tragedy and its effects on individual lives than the emotional personal account of one young gentleman in Committee Room 7 yesterday. His words will stay with me for a very long time.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

In common with many other speakers, the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for compensation, and I think all Members have sympathy with that. However, given the pain being caused by the £1 billion saved by getting rid of child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, where does he think that £3 billion will come from? Does he have the courage to tell the House which budget we should cut to pay that compensation?

[Steve Rotheram]

I am being encouraged to make a party political point, but as my mum used to say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” and, believe me, if I were sitting on the Government Benches now I would be saying exactly the same thing. On this issue, it does not matter what political party we are in.

The NHS failed almost 5,000 people. Through using contaminated blood and blood products, it made ill people more ill, sometimes fatally so. It made perfectly healthy individuals—accident victims requiring blood transfusions, for example—unwell for life. Indeed, as many have said this fiasco was, in Lord Winston’s words,

“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.

The state should have gone out of its way decades ago to compensate victims financially and in kind, not only to accept responsibility, but proactively to alleviate the adverse impact of its mistakes. Instead, successive Governments have prevaricated; they have been reluctant to acknowledge fault and loth to carry the can financially.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Constituents of mine, such as a gentleman, whom I will not name, who contracted both HIV and hepatitis C at the age of five, have made it clear that they do not want Members to consider the issue on a party political basis, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is reflecting that wish in his tone. It is incumbent on every Member to put party politics aside and to do all we can to ensure that this matter is treated as a top priority, while also taking into account the constraints on the state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

I absolutely agree, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) agrees with our view as well. He said:

“It really is time that as a Country, as a government (and forget whatever Party it is), we should now take responsibility for this. It’s a completely shocking scandal.”

Let me tell Members about what happened to a constituent of mine, Mr Christopher Munn. In 1981, he was mugged and stabbed. He received a blood transfusion and contracted hepatitis C. For years, Mr Munn fought for recognition, support and compensation but, unable to afford legal representation, he found himself led a merry dance, and was swatted away like some bothersome pest. An initial application to the Skipton Fund was rejected but, thankfully, on appeal, some 25 years after being infected he was awarded a few thousand pounds. Now, £25,000 or £45,000 is no small sum, but if we do the maths it quickly becomes apparent how risible that amount actually is when spread over 25 years and more.

This issue is largely about the money of course. Many victims, severely debilitated by conditions developed as a direct result of contaminated blood, have been struggling to meet their medical needs, let alone achieve a comfortable standard of living. However, the issue is also about the need for acknowledgement. Victims need the state to accept unreservedly and unconditionally its responsibility for their plight, and to meet its moral obligations. For the NHS and, by extension, the current Government to retain their integrity, they must make amends. To those who have challenged Labour Members with comments such as, “But what did your Government do about it?”, my answer is very simple: not enough.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Rotheram]

No, as I am conscious of time.

The bottom line is that successive Governments irrespective of their political persuasion hesitated over investing resources and setting precedents. They were all equally culpable in failing the victims, but rather than bang on about who did or did not do what and when, let us finally seize the opportunity to right a terrible wrong.

I fully appreciate that money is tight, but morality is absolute, not some relative concept that expands and contracts to suit circumstances. We cannot as a society be more moral in good times than in bad. The Government have spoken about compassion and fairness and “the caring society”. They have no option but to put their money where their mouth is in order to put right a decade-old wrong.

Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Burns]

I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady could reach either of those conclusions, and I can tell her with all clarity that my answer to both questions is no. I do not think either of those things—that is, that proper scrutiny has not been carried out or that changes to the existing system are not needed. I can reassure her on those points, but the problem is that the final decision was taken after 1 January—very close to the calling of the general election. Because the review commences from 1 January, the project falls within its scope and must be reviewed, in these changed circumstances, to help to meet our pressing economic problems and deal with the debt that we have inherited. The project received Treasury approval only in March. As a result, it is caught up in the review, as are many other projects.

The issue comes down to the simple fact that this country faces crippling debts. A huge amount of work is involved in the Treasury review. As I hope hon. Members will appreciate, I cannot give an exact timetable for the decision, but to be as helpful as I can and, I hope, live up to the kind words of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, I anticipate a decision being taken by the spending review in the autumn. I appreciate that that might be frustrating for hon. Members and their constituents, but it is the best I can do. I hope that that answer moves towards their concept of helpfulness. I am afraid that, until then, I cannot comment further on the future of the development. If hon. Members were in the position in which my Government and I find ourselves, I am sure that they would do the same.

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I and everyone in the country share a vision of and want a high-quality NHS—accountable to patients, led by GPs and controlled locally. As a party, we were elected on a platform of real-terms increases in the NHS budget for every year of this five-year Parliament. It is a protected budget, so there will be no cuts, but there will be real-terms increases year after year, as long as this Parliament remains, which I anticipate will be five years. In that respect, there is stability and commitment, and an understanding of the financial commitments to the NHS. That, I hope, will give some stability to the overall decision-making process and the decisions that the NHS will have to take beyond simple capital projects.

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

Does the Minister agree that our city and its citizens deserve not only a new hospital built on the Royal Liverpool site, but the state-of-the-art facilities outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)? Does he also agree that the jobs created during the construction phase, similar to those that the Prime Minister spoke of in the Chamber this afternoon, would boost the local economy at a time of economic uncertainty? From what the Minister has said, the project appears to meet the Chancellor’s tests under the Treasury review because it is primarily financed under the private finance initiative.