(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I would like to thank the Speaker’s Office for selecting the subject of public satisfaction with the NHS for debate. I will focus on three pieces of research, and on the Government’s attempts to prevent information getting into the public domain, to prevent scrutiny of policy and to cut funding for future sources of information, all while failing to inform Parliament. The three surveys are “Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care” by Ipsos MORI from March 2010, the general lifestyle survey by the Office for National Statistics, and the British social attitudes survey by the National Centre for Social Research.
The first survey, “Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care” by Ipsos MORI, has been carried out every six months since 2000. It recently emerged that the latest results, from last year, were being withheld from the public domain. Ministers were accused of burying good news because the information clearly shows increasing levels of public satisfaction. On 22 March 2011, the Secretary of State was questioned about that by the Select Committee on Health, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). The Secretary of State’s defence was that as previous surveys had not been released, he would not release the information from March 2010. The reality is that the previous data were only ever released following questions by the Opposition. From March 2007, the then Opposition stopped asking for the information, and we can only assume that that was because the level of public satisfaction was increasing, and it did not exactly serve their purpose to draw that information into the public domain.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend says. I can recount a conversation I had with a local general practitioner, who told me that in the 1980s, a constituent of mine in need of a hip replacement came to see him. He could not get her a place anywhere within the health service. My constituency is deprived, and it was impossible for her or her family to get treatment privately, so she had to suffer in silence. That would not happen nowadays. My GP, who represents my constituents, told me that that has not happened to him since the early 1990s. Is that not the evidence we need to show that the health service has improved significantly in recent years?
John Cryer
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had exactly the same experience. We were both elected in 1997, and when I became an MP, I regularly had people come to see me with orthopaedic problems who had been waiting for operations for two to two and a half years. Some of them were in serious pain and unable to work. In the past few years, the complaints I have been hearing are that people have not had an operation for four or six months. It is a completely different world.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
May I put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery before we start the debate on a false premise? He is absolutely right: the previous Government did not publish the 2008, 2009 and 2010 surveys, to which he refers. It may be of interest to him to know that the 2010 report was published following a written answer by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in December 2010, and placed in the Library.
John Cryer
If the Minister will calm down a bit, I will come to that. After the Secretary of State appeared before the Health Committee, it emerged that data until 2010 had been placed in the Library, and the results until December 2009 are on the Ipsos MORI website. I was granted this debate on 24 March and the data were released the following day, Friday 25 March, on the Department of Health website. Previously, the data had not been on the Department’s website. It might be a coincidence, but it struck me that that was a fairly good time to bury good news: it was the day before 500,000 people tramped through central London on the TUC march in opposition to the cuts. The fact that the data were not initially released is unsurprising, given that polling showed a 72% satisfaction rating. Ipsos MORI concluded in the report:
“This level of satisfaction has now been recorded for over a year…suggesting that there has been a…positive shift in the public’s perceptions of the NHS. Pride in the NHS also continues to climb and is at its highest recorded level”.
Pride in the NHS is at its highest ever recorded level—an interesting statistic. We might hear a comment from the Minister about that.
John Cryer
I will leave that to the Minister to answer, because I have not finished my comments about the suppression of statistics.
My story does not end with the original survey on public perceptions of the NHS. The second of the three surveys is the general lifestyle survey, carried out every year by the ONS on behalf of Government Departments, but that has had its funding withdrawn by the NHS information centre, for reasons best known to the Government. However, Sir Michael Scholar, head of the UK Statistics Authority, has warned that the decision may break the Government’s rules on consultation. I should point out that the general lifestyle survey provides statistics on public health and does not involve NHS satisfaction rates. It produces figures, information and statistics for testing Government policy and holding Governments to account; it is important that the information be available for holding Ministers to account. If the decision to withhold funding for the general lifestyle survey stands, the information will not be available to us in future.
The Department of Health also intends to withdraw funding for health and NHS satisfaction questions in the British social attitudes survey. The survey will be familiar to many Members. It is carried out annually by the NCSR, which is a pretty respected body, both nationally and internationally. The withdrawal of funding was not announced to the House of Commons, but was leaked over the weekend to Health Policy Insight, which published an interesting editorial that condemned the decision to withdraw funding in fairly colourful language.
The British social attitudes survey charts how NHS satisfaction started at 55% in 1983, which was the year the first survey was published. That plummeted to 35% by the time the Conservative Government left office in 1997. The latest satisfaction rate is 64%, which, according to John Appleby from the King’s Fund, is the highest level of satisfaction since the survey began in 1983, and part of a continuous upward trend since 2002. He said:
“The NHS must have been doing something right to earn this extra satisfaction”.
There is also an interesting quote from the director of the Nuffield Trust, Jennifer Dixon:
“I suspect that public satisfaction will decline because the pressurised financial climate will result in staff unrest, cuts, and the spectre of rationing but also because of the relaxation of some of the process targets that the public hold dear, such as waiting times.”
She continued:
“To overload reform on top of that is the problem and to do both at the same time is very risky.”
I emphasise “very risky”.
The reason for killing off such research is fairly clear. The aim is to obscure the results of Government policies so that they cannot be exposed to the proper scrutiny that we all want, and to prevent comparisons with the records of previous Governments—Labour and Tory. If the information is not available, the records of previous Governments cannot be compared with the record of this Government.
There are a number of questions that I should like the Minister to answer. Will the “Public Perceptions of the NHS and Social Care” survey by Ipsos MORI continue to be funded and to be reported on? If it is not to be continued, will the research be replaced? The research is very detailed and heavyweight. I can provide it to the Minister, although I assume he already has it. I do not intend to imply that Ministers intend to cut funding for that research, but because of other decisions, we start to wonder whether that might be the conclusion.
The Government have decided, apparently without telling Parliament, to axe funding for two other crucial pieces of independent research: the British social attitudes survey, which I mentioned, and the general lifestyle survey, conducted by the ONS, which I also mentioned. Ministers have sneaked out the information that funding is to be cut in a fairly underhand way. Many Labour Members suspect that it is being done so that we cannot draw comparisons with previous Governments. The information will not be available to allow us to say, “Government policies were working but funding has been cut, which is having an effect on public perceptions and services.”
Public perception is crucial. My impression and that of piles of research is that public perceptions are improving and are at an all-time high, but that does not satisfy Ministers, who are engaging in the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since Nye Bevan created it in 1947. If information is in the public domain showing that the public are very happy with the NHS, particularly acute and GP treatments, it does not serve the purposes of a Government who are committed to the wholesale reorganisation of one of the most beloved institutions of British society. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Five Members wish to speak and we have about 50 minutes for debate; they can do the calculations for themselves.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) makes his own points in his own way. Both my parents started to work for the NHS on the day it came into being: my father as a doctor and my mother as a nurse. Throughout the 60-plus years of its existence there has been enormous pride in the NHS, among those who work in it and among the community as a whole.
The interesting notion advanced by the Opposition is that because people are generally satisfied with their doctors, all is well with the NHS. Of course people are overwhelmingly happy with their GPs. By and large, we have freedom of choice over our GP, and if we are not happy with services we change our GP. It is of concern that a recent survey of NHS users found that one in five failed to get a prompt GP appointment when they asked for it, but that notwithstanding it is not surprising that nine out of 10 patients are satisfied with their GP surgeries. That is not the point. The point is that we have an ageing and more complex population who will rightly make increasing demands on the NHS. Unsurprisingly, most people have greatest contact with the NHS in the last years of their lives.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman off his stride, but is he not slightly missing the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), which was not simply that people are satisfied with the NHS but that they are progressively more satisfied, which is a more surprising finding, is it not?
Tony Baldry
I have not missed the point at all. The point being made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead is that nine out of 10 people are satisfied with their GPs, so somehow all is well with the NHS and nothing need change. If my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) had read the report of the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the former Labour Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), he would know that it concludes that although the previous Government increased the amount of money going into the NHS that did not lead to greater outputs. The report makes sobering reading, and I am concerned that more parliamentary colleagues have not read it and that it has not received the attention in the House that it deserves.
John Cryer
The point effectively made by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) is that satisfaction rates are not remaining level but climbing markedly. The British social attitudes survey shows that in 1983 satisfaction stood at 55% and plummeted to 35% in 1997. It is now up to 64%. According to Ipsos MORI, 90% of outpatients, 88% of inpatients and 81% of accident and emergency patients are satisfied—the highest levels ever recorded.
Tony Baldry
The hon. Gentleman, again, makes his own point in his own way. He says, and I understand him, that members of the public are satisfied with the NHS so nothing need change. I am not sure whether he has read the unanimous PAC report that was published only weeks ago, but I remind Members that it says:
“The level of hospital activity has not kept pace with the increased resources as hospitals focused on meeting national targets, but not on improving productivity, and productivity has actually fallen over the last decade…Though the increased money going into the NHS has helped to reduce waiting times, improve facilities, and deliver higher quality care, the Department promised at the same time to improve productivity. It failed and, in future, the Department needs to have a more explicit focus on improving hospital productivity if it is to deliver its ambitious savings targets without healthcare services suffering.”
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is notoriously difficult to measure productivity in crude terms—activity, outcomes and so on—and that the quality of the output, which perhaps reflects the greater investment of resources, is not included in the survey?
Tony Baldry
I am sorry to hear the apologia of Opposition Members, who are confronted with concerns about what is happening in the NHS. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the National Audit Office report published on 17 December 2010, “Management of NHS hospital productivity”. The NAO has no difficulty in measuring NHS productivity, and neither does the PAC. Before Opposition Members jump up, they should remember that the Labour party left the NHS with a huge, unpaid overdraft of £60 billion. It is a staggering fact that of the £65 billion of hospital building works carried out in the 13 years of the Labour Government, only £5 billion was paid for. Despite a number of very generous private finance initiative projects, the NHS still has an overdraft and must pay for £60 billion of hospital building works. The previous Government, while they may have put more money into the NHS, saw no improvement in outcomes and have left the NHS with a substantial overdraft.
As the Chair of the Health Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), has observed, even if, as intended, the Government manage to ensure that spending on the NHS is ring-fenced and runs ahead of inflation, the NHS, in the next few years, has to become substantially more efficient in how it uses its assets, and treats and looks after patients—hence the need for reforms. Let us be clear. The reforms are about cutting bureaucracy and improving patient care and have been proposed by the coalition Government to improve the NHS and to ensure that we maintain public satisfaction and support for the NHS. We need to ensure that the Health and Social Care Bill, which is going through Parliament, delivers those reforms in the best possible way.
I have no doubt that Ministers will give proper attention to the report next week of the Health Committee and that, in due course, the Government will have regard to any constructive suggestions from the other place to ensure that the Bill is as clear and effective as possible. In any health system, however, difficult decisions have to be made about how one best utilises finite resources. However much money as a country we commit to the NHS, that money will be finite. Choices will have to be made about how that money is best spent: at one end of the spectrum, about whether and in what circumstances people get treated for varicose veins; and at the other end of the spectrum about when, and how often, major and significant, complex and expensive invasive surgery takes place. It seems to me that it makes extremely good sense for those decisions to be made in a collegiate manner, on behalf of their patients, by GPs. It seems to me to make very good sense to allow GPs, individually and collegiately, to make value judgments about the quality of services being provided by individual hospital providers for their patients.
As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead made clear when introducing this debate, patients trust their GPs and I see no reason why we should not, collectively, trust GPs to commission the best available services in the NHS. Critics of the reforms have sought to present them as something that they are not. However, as the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions:
“we have ruled out price competition in the NHS.”
He went gone on to make it clear that
“we must avoid cherry-picking by the private sector in the NHS.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 292.]
Tony Baldry
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I would just make the observation that I suspect that quite a number of his colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, and that every time I allow an intervention it probably reduces the time that they have.
John Cryer
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for giving way and for his valuable advice that I will hold dear to my heart.
May I just point out that, although the exposure to EU competition laws—he is referring indirectly to that—is not in the Bill, primary care trusts are officially regarded as state enterprises? As state enterprises, they are not exposed to EU competition law. The new consortia that will replace them, because they are not state enterprises, will be exposed to EU competition law, and will therefore expose the NHS, generally, to EU competition law. Does he support that?
Tony Baldry
Again, that is a slightly bizarre argument from the hon. Gentleman. There has been much talk about competition in the NHS, which is surprising as the Labour party appeared to be in favour of competition in its own election manifesto. The coalition Government have made it clear that the only competition that will exist in the NHS is competition on quality, not price. The Secretary of State could not have made that clearer in the House when he said:
“At the point when a patient exercises choice or a GP undertakes a referral, the price of providers will be the same. By extension, competition must be on the basis of quality.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 387.]
To deal with another misrepresentation, EU competition law already exists and the health reform proposals do nothing to change that. They do not, in any way, extend competition law. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that any competition can only be on quality, not on price. In any event, I find it strange that the Labour party and others suddenly seem to be coming forward to express concerns about the private sector in the NHS, when it was the previous Labour Government who, for example, in Banbury set up a privately run, privately managed, privately owned independent treatment centre and a privately managed, privately owned independent Darzi GP centre. The previous Labour Government, bizarrely, gave the private sector—because their contracting was so poor—some £250 million for operations that were never carried out. However, given that they have left the NHS with an overdraft of £60 billion, I suppose that they would consider £250 million thrown away on operations that were never actually carried out as, possibly by their standards, small change.
We have to realise, with an ageing population, more extensive treatments and new drugs becoming available, that we have to tackle bureaucracy in the NHS. We need to reform the NHS to make sure that it is as efficient and as effective as possible. We are ensuring that patients have choice—choice based on quality and from whom they receive care. There is simply no issue on this, in that the Labour Party said in its manifesto at the general election, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead has read it:
“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality”.
We have made it absolutely clear, under the coalition Government, that the NHS will remain free at the point of need, paid for from general taxation, and be based entirely on need, not on the ability to pay. Those are fundamental principles of the NHS. They have been fundamental principles of the NHS ever since it came into being, and the coalition parties are, I am sure, determined not to undermine, in any way, any of the rights in the NHS constitution. Indeed, the coalition Government are seeking to protect the NHS, throughout the duration of the Parliament, by increasing NHS funding by £10.7 billion. A substantial number of GP groups, all over England, have volunteered as pathfinders to demonstrate how GP commissioning can work. GPs throughout Oxfordshire are coming together to form a suitable GP consortium.
Let me tell the House what is being said by those in my constituency who are involved in the GP consortium. Local GP Dr Judith Wright, who is co-ordinating the north Oxfordshire GPs, has said:
“Andrew Lansley’s proposals will give power to local GPs to decide how that budget should be spent to meet local health needs. Priorities will be decided by doctors through a process informed by patients, local authorities, public health and secondary care”.
Dr Wright went on to observe:
“I believe that GPs are best placed to be able to meet this challenge. Collectively they know the health needs of their local population. They can act as a catalyst for change. They will have a role in deciding the destination of local services and the route to get there.”
Andrew McHugh, who is the practice manager at Horsefair surgery in Banbury, observed:
“The health budget is a finite resource. Andrew Lansley’s proposals will give power to local GPs to decide how that budget is spent in order to meet local health needs. Priorities will be decided by doctors through a process informed by democratically accountable public and patient involvement. We need to be looking for innovative ways of spending the health budget wisely.”
In a recent issue of Prospect magazine, Ali Parsa pointed out that, as a nation:
“We used to spend 3 per cent of our GDP on healthcare in the 1980s…6 per cent in the 1990s, 9 per cent now and on our way to 12 per cent.”
In the current financial climate, that is unsustainable. Business as usual is not an option. We need to review what treatments are provided to ensure they are clinically effective and cost-effective—in other words, evidence-based practice. I think that Dr Judith Wright and Andrew McHugh’s comments are extremely balanced and sensible.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I just came from a meeting of the British Medical Association about two hours ago. Its members asked me very clearly to pass this message on to the party on the Government Benches: will they please stop using the fact that GPs are becoming involved to suggest that they support the moves? They see becoming involved in terms of having no alternative—they say that it is being forced on them and that they are becoming engaged in the interests of their patients, not because they believe in what is being done.
Tony Baldry
May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to others that they actually start listening to what is being said? They might start by noting what was said in their own election manifesto. They might start listening to what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are saying on the Floor of the House of Commons, and the hon. Gentleman might as well do them the courtesy of just listening to what GPs in my constituency are saying on the record. It is clear that he is not listening. If he wishes to have a dialogue of the unlistening, that is a matter for him. The changes that the NHS needs are straightforward: less waste, more involvement, power to GPs and front-line doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and putting patients first. There is not really an intellectual divide on this matter. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State earlier observed:
“The general aims of reform are sound—greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes”.
I could not have put it better. As for less bureaucracy, ever since the coalition Government came to office, one of the things they have cut in the NHS is bureaucracy. That has resulted in 2,000 fewer managers since the general election, but, interestingly, 2,500 more doctors.
I have every confidence in the Secretary of State for Health. He and his ministerial team, while we were in opposition, took considerable efforts to visit Banbury on a number of occasions to understand the challenges being faced by the Horton general hospital and to meet with GPs. As he observed to local GPs before the general election, GP commissioning will enable those GPs in north Oxfordshire, south Northamptonshire and south Warwickshire who wish to send their patients to the Horton hospital to do so, confident that the money will follow the patient.
Again, I do not think it surprising that the shadow Secretary of State should have observed:
“No one in the House of Commons knows more about the NHS than Andrew Lansley—except perhaps Stephen Dorrell. But Andrew Lansley spent six years in Opposition as shadow health secretary. No one has visited more of the NHS. No one has talked to more people...in the NHS…these plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive. I would expect nothing less from Andrew Lansley.”
If Opposition Members are not willing to listen to me, perhaps they would be willing to listen to the shadow Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State, when in opposition, visited my constituency at least three times, and I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Government ministerial team in the Commons visited my constituency at least once, to understand the challenges and needs of hospitals such as the Horton. The Royal College of General Practitioners said that it believes that there should be more clinical commissioning. Even the British Medical Association has confirmed that it believes that GP-led commissioning is the right way forward. Indeed, the only opponents to the proposals appear to be the Labour party and the trade unions, but, given what the Labour party did when it was in office, and what it stated in its manifesto and even more recently, one can only conclude that, now that it is in opposition, it seeks to jump on every passing bandwagon, feels obliged to say whatever will keep the trade unions happy and seeks to block every sensible reform.
The views of the trade unions on all of this are as depressing as they are, perhaps, predictable, and in the category of trade union I also place the BMA. It is right to recall that the BMA opposed GP fundholding, longer opening hours for GP surgeries, which clearly would have been for the benefit of patients, and foundation hospitals. In fact, I cannot think of a single NHS reform over the years which it has not opposed, or a single one on which it has been in the vanguard.
No one pretends that health care systems around the world are facing anything other than enormous challenges. That is no less so in the UK. We need to be sure that patients and taxpayers get the best value possible for every pound spent in the NHS. We need the best possible outcomes in the NHS, whether for stroke victims, heart attack victims or those who have long-term medical conditions. The reforms are about building on the strengths of the NHS, improving it and making it better able to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. That is how we will ensure that people will rightly continue to be supportive of, and satisfied and happy with, the NHS, which we all want to be the best possible health service in the world.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on introducing a debate on such an important subject, and on the balanced way in which he opened it. I should declare that I am the co-chair with Lord Rix of the all-party group on learning disability. It is on that subject that I wish to speak in the five or six minutes that I hope to take.
I would like to make it clear that although I shall make several criticisms of aspects of the national health service, I stand second to no one in my regard for it or, as a GMB member, in my respect for those who work for the NHS, including the trade unions. They are helping to create their big society—a meaningful society—and making the NHS something of which we are all very proud.
The learning disability group has been helped considerably by Mencap. Today, I shall rely on its research and the many conclusions that it has reached. It published “Death by indifference” in 2007. Indeed, I had a debate in this Hall when the Labour Government were in power, so I hope that I will not be regarded as party political.
The report highlighted the tragic consequences of deep-rooted institutional discrimination in the NHS against people with a learning disability. In many cases, NHS staff did not know about the specific needs of people with a learning disability and did not take the time to understand and meet those needs. People with a learning disability are some of the most vulnerable members of society and have some of the most profound health care needs. Although the Government investigated the issue in the independent inquiry led by Sir Jonathan Michael, in a poll conducted on behalf of Mencap, almost one half of doctors, or 47%, and one third of nurses, or 37%, said that people with a learning disability received a poorer standard of health care than the rest of the population. In the same poll, 39% of doctors and 34% of nurses went as far as saying that people with a learning disability were discriminated against in the NHS.
I want to deal with the NHS complaints system. The unnecessary deaths—sadly, that has been the case—of people with a learning disability do nothing to increase public confidence in the ability of the NHS to give effective care to those vulnerable members of society who are most in need of it. However, that is compounded by the malfunctioning NHS complaints system which, as a result of being time-consuming, defensive and too heavily weighted in favour of health professionals, refuses to learn from previous mistakes in order to drive up standards and increase public confidence.
Following its “Death by indifference” report, Mencap has helped a number of families through the complaints system. It is revealing that not a single family has ever said they felt that justice had been achieved through the local complaints procedure. That is due to the overwhelming desire of NHS trusts to stand up for their staff, the potential conflicts of interest when NHS staff investigate complaints made about people working in the same trust, and a fundamental lack of understanding about what learning disability is.
The same issues are evident when the complaints are escalated to the parliamentary and health service ombudsman. NHS trusts have disproportionate access to support, in comparison with the families going through the complaints process. In addition, the time scales given for complaints to be dealt with are usually longer than expected and only succeed in drawing out a family’s grief.
I would like to conclude with a few comments on this theme. In light of tragic cases of misunderstanding in administering health care to vulnerable people, public confidence in the NHS understandably has been undermined. The defensive nature of the NHS complaints system, however, means that the NHS does not learn valuable lessons which could help prevent unnecessary deaths from occurring in the future. Public and patient confidence in the NHS will be improved only with greater accountability and transparency so that people can see that efforts are being made to drive up standards. The complaints process is central to that and therefore requires a fundamental overhaul to make it a more impartial and reflective system. That is necessary to drive up health outcomes across the NHS and to increase public confidence in it.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Putting aside his conspiracy theory, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on initiating this important and timely event. I say that it is timely, but it is not timely for the poor Minister, who was unwell yesterday, and who does not look too good today. I understand that his colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), is now also smitten, so the casualties from the Committee considering the Health and Social Care Bill are on the increase.
There may be good reasons for substantial change in the NHS, and one of those that has been given is not that the public are not satisfied with the NHS, but that they should not be satisfied with it. It must be conceded, of course, that the case for radical change is lessened a little if the public are increasingly satisfied with what goes on. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to, and put beyond all doubt, the fact that the public are satisfied with the NHS, and we should have that important truth out in the open. Whatever we do in policy, it is important that we are evidence-led, and a wanton disregard for evidence when making policy is wicked and morally irresponsible.
If we ignore the conspiracy theory aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, it is clear that he has done the House a service by drawing attention to the truth that the public are broadly satisfied with the NHS. We cannot be as confident, however, about the explanations for that. It is most unlikely that public satisfaction is unconnected with things such as decreased waiting lists and increased investment. It is also most unlikely that it is unconnected with the dedication and skill of NHS staff, which remain no matter what politicians decide in this place.
However, satisfaction can be linked to other things, such as sentiment. Some years ago, research into the NHS produced some rather puzzling outcomes. If people in general were asked about the NHS, they had a fairly negative view, but if they were asked about their personal treatment at the hands of the NHS, they were thoroughly satisfied. That was explained by the way in which the media portrayed the NHS and the way in which stories about the NHS appeared in the media.
Another interesting bit of data, which the hon. Gentleman did not allude to, indicates that we are talking not just about a switch in what the media, and therefore the public, are saying. Reports about the NHS by NHS workers themselves have been increasingly positive. Worryingly, there was a stage when a lot of them would give a rather bad account of what was going on in the NHS when they were asked about it. Recently, the data have shown quite conclusively that people working in the NHS speak more positively about it. Such people are more immune to changes in media tone.
The debate so far, however, has been not so much about whether people are satisfied, which we can all take as read, as about whether they should be satisfied. Clearly, that depends not on whether they are satisfied with the NHS, but on whether the NHS actually does its job, which is to make people more healthy, not more satisfied. To give an example, people often feel very satisfied and contented with small maternity units, but such units sometimes have higher infant mortality rates, and outcomes are actually less satisfactory.
Patient-reported outcome measures—PROMs—sometimes show a different picture from clinical outcomes. We have mentioned independent treatment centres, and a lot of evidence seems to show that people are very satisfied with them, although the satisfaction is more to do with the catering and reception arrangements than with the clinical outcomes.
The moot question, therefore, is whether patients have reasonable grounds for dissatisfaction or satisfaction with NHS, whether or not they actually express any—always bearing it in mind that what the public are reluctant to fund, they should not complain about. However, the real question, given the funding that the public have set aside for the NHS, is whether the NHS has delivered the outcomes that people could rationally expect.
When pressed on the issue, senior Government politicians, up to and including the Prime Minister, talk about three issues: cancer and heart disease outcomes, bureaucracy and unimpressive productivity, which are presented as legitimate gripes. It is sometimes tempting to believe that politicians need to find faults in public services because they like reforming them, and I am sometimes inclined to think that we should redefine public services as anything a politician wants to reform. However, there is a need to find out whether there are any real grounds for dissatisfaction with the service we currently have. Unless we can find genuine grounds for people to be dissatisfied, whether or not they are, we should not have overly radical disturbance or upheaval in the system.
Can we make a case for public dissatisfaction? Let me briefly take the three issues I mentioned in turn. We certainly should not bang on about the cardiovascular field. I had the unnerving experience the other day of listening to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions tell the House how poor our outcomes were when set against those of comparable countries. Later, I attended an event organised by the British Heart Foundation to celebrate world-beating progress. That was a very puzzling experience. The King’s Fund has adequately exposed the myth about heart disease outcomes, and no one in the Department of Health should embarrass the Prime Minister any longer with briefings that disappoint and depress those who are better informed on this issue.
Last week, the Prime Minister notably stuck to the safer ground of cancer outcomes. To be fair, despite sharp falls in mortality among males and excellent progress on breast cancer treatment, we do not seem to excel our peers, and there is clearly work to be done. When looking at the issue, however, we should not use just the old research done by Professor Coleman 10 years ago, because the data on the issue is quite weak. If there are poor outcomes on cancer, however, it is not obvious why it therefore follows that structural and organisational upheaval is the solution, particularly as the prime cause of poor cancer outcomes, as far as I can tell, is late referral by GPs, and the prime solution is a more integrated service and strong regional clinical networks. It is a fact that we spend less on the treatment of cancer than the countries we compare ourselves with.
Turning to the other flaws, there are legitimate objects for criticism from time to time. On bureaucracy, I assume that everybody here understands that the administrative costs of running the NHS compare very favourably with those of running health systems in other parts of the world; that is not a debateable point. Even if those costs are higher than we would wish, they certainly compare favourably.
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the Public Accounts Committee have said, that productivity has not increased linearly or proportionally with investment, but that is true of business sectors, too. That is a common phenomenon; every extra pound does not give us the same amount in increased productivity. The wonder is that people expect life to be that simple. If that is a real problem, however, it is a poor argument for giving GPs all the money to spend, especially when the National Audit Office research, which has been quoted, shows that giving GPs extra money under the contract would not necessarily give us a vast increase in overall productivity. If we drew a graph showing the rise in income and the outcomes at GP surgeries—I can give hon. Members copies of the PAC report—we would find a phenomenon similar to that described by the hon. Member for Banbury with respect to hospitals. There does not, therefore, seem to be quite as clear-cut a case as one might wish to justify a case for public dissatisfaction, and the public might have a case for not being as dissatisfied as all that.
I want to refer Members to an excellent document from the Commonwealth Fund, which contains up-to-date research on many health systems across the world that are comparable to that in the UK. The research includes a number of indicators that are very favourable to our system, and this is copper-bottomed research. It shows that the UK has lower than average spending; that, according to UK citizens, our system needs less changing than those of our peers—that is what people in our country say and what people in other countries do not say to the same extent; that it inspires the greatest confidence in terms of effective treatment; that it requires the citizen to fork out the fewest additional payments; and that it is among the best for quick appointments, access and diagnosis. It is not perfect, and I have not undermined the case for all sorts of changes in the NHS, but as we say in Lancashire, “Mustn’t grumble.” There is a case for looking at what we have delivered and perhaps celebrating it.
As Government, as parties and as politicians in general, we can certainly make a case for reform, and that case can be made independently of this debate. What I cannot convince myself of at the moment—indeed, none of us can—is that the public are dissatisfied with the NHS. They are not. Nor can I convince myself that they have grounds for dissatisfaction that go beyond those one would find in any health service, anywhere in the world at any time.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
It might help Mr Anderson and Mr Morris if I say that the two Front Benchers have each agreed to speak for 10 minutes, which leaves a further 20 minutes for debate: 10 minutes for each of you. Mr Anderson.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on getting this debate. Like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I stand here as the son of a nurse, though she stopped work before the NHS was created. Through her lifetime she saw the improvements in the NHS. I also stand as a man whose niece is fighting for her life in intensive care in the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle. She is a young girl of 40 years old. I call her a girl because from the day she was born she has been hit by muscular dystrophy. She has needed the NHS from the first minute of her life. It has been there for every moment, as it was for one of my sisters, who sadly died at 53 of the same disease. The NHS was always there for them, never perfect, but second to none when compared with health services around the world. Those of us fortunate to have better health have always been prepared to pay to ensure that those who need help were able to get it.
Due to my experience with muscular dystrophy, I have the privilege of being the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the subject. That group has shown what we as parliamentarians can do together. We have come together, across the parties, and made huge improvements in the past few years in ensuring that specialist commissioning groups have worked with the all-party group here and with PCTs on the ground, making real improvements in the lives of people suffering from muscular dystrophy. We had a meeting about a month ago in this House. People came from across the country and across the political spectrum, and there were also professionals in the health service. They were all concerned about the direction of travel on which the Government are bent. Their concerns are: will they still be able to access the things they need? Will specialised commissioning groups still be able to work together to deliver the services they want? They have genuine concerns that the all-party group will take forward with the Minister as the debate continues.
This debate is about satisfaction. Why is satisfaction up? There are a number of reasons. Although I have some issues with the hon. Member for Banbury, I agree with him in that I have campaigned against the private finance initiative since before the previous Government took office, since the early 1990s, when the idea was first floated by the former Secretary of State for Health and now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I opposed it back then, and I have thought it the wrong direction for my Government to take over the past 13 years. The truth is that my Government had to do something.
The hon. Member for Banbury hit the nail on the head when he said that spending on health was 3% of GDP in the 1980s. We know it was 3% because people were being looked after in Victorian hospitals. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) regularly says, in his area people were being looked after in an old workhouse. That was not good enough for the Labour party, and it was not good enough for the people of this country. That is why we decided that over the period we would increase investment in the NHS, and we increased it by 300%. The people of this country went along with that, including when we put 1% on national insurance contributions. People supported that move because they believed in the service that the NHS delivered. We should never forget that.
During discussions on developing a more capital-intensive NHS, into which a lot of money went, we saw real moves on staff harmonisation, recognising the roles of staff and increasing the responsibilities of people at different levels in the health service. A huge amount of work went into that. While that was happening, other work was being done on improving public health across the board.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) raised the issue of productivity. It is strange how he defined productivity. I would be interested to read the report from the NAO on defining it, and I am glad that he has brought it to my attention. Productivity used to be measured in the health service by recording when an episode concluded. An episode could be concluded when someone died. A hospital where more people died was more successful in terms of productivity than one where somebody kept coming back and that episode was not concluded. That is a perverse way to look at productivity. The real measure of productivity is that there are twice as many people alive at 85 and over than there were 20 years ago. Should we not celebrate that? Is that not a productivity increase of which we can all be proud? That is the result of the work done.
I am not going to pretend the NHS is perfect. We know it is not perfect; every one of us as constituency MPs will have dealt with issues.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is not a question of not thinking that it is perfect, but one of wanting constantly to improve it. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) offered a view, with which I concur, that an individual’s experience of the NHS is different from their broad view, based on what they read in the press. The personal experience of the vast majority of people is either positive or very positive. The broad view is less so, which is hardly surprising, since the vast majority of editors of news journals in this country do not regard good news as news at all. It is also true that many people have a positive view of services they perceive to be under threat. Take the example of a local school. There is always a more positive view if it is under threat. The problem in this country is that millions of people, sadly, believe the NHS to be under threat.
Mr Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour: I will discuss that with him later.
As a constituency MP, I have had three cases over the past six years of supporting people making complaints against the NHS. We took them as far as we could, trying to raise resolutions. However, none of those people opposed the NHS as an organisation; it was the specific treatment they had received that they were complaining about. There have actually been hugely improved outcomes, as I know from talking to thousands of ordinary folk across the constituency. How happy they are that we built—thankfully, before this Government got in—a new health and leisure centre in Gateshead. Unlike the Building Schools for the Future money, that was not stopped. We got it built before 7 May last year: thank God for that. The real people who matter—the public—are concerned about where we are going.
We should be thankful for the people who work in the NHS. I get really frustrated and annoyed when I hear coalition Members and the Secretary of State, who seems to take real pleasure in denigrating trade unionists, as if trade unionists were removed from this. The vast majority of trade unionists who represent health workers are hands-on professionals. They are not sitting in an office all day; they are at the coal face. They are not just talking about representing people; they are doing it, day in, day out. It is a disgrace that a party pretending to be the party of the big society should denigrate the people who are part of the largest voluntary group in the country. They stand up for people day in and day out. At the same time as standing up for their colleagues, they work in the service, they represent the service and they fight for the people they take care of. Their voice is important; their voice is informed and should not be ignored.
What do we see? We see Ministers refusing to listen to groups within the health service. I just picked up a report of the Second Reading, when I referred to one of those groups, the King’s Fund. Others include the Ministers’ own colleague, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston); the British Medical Association, denigrated here by the hon. Member for Banbury; the Royal College of Physicians; the Royal College of Nursing and the head of Arthritis Care. Every one of those has been ignored by the Government, on the basis of “We know best.”
Most Conservative Members have had a degree of education way beyond mine. However, in this debate, the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) should be heeded, when he said that a lot of them have been “educated beyond their intelligence”. If this debate does not show that, nothing else does. The truth is that constantly over the past 13 years, health professionals have said to us, “Let us get on with the job.” The promise the Conservative party gave in opposition was that it would do exactly that; it would let them get on with the job, because there has been far too much meddling in the health service. I agree with that but, now, instead of letting them get on with the job, the Government are turning the health service upside down. Not only will it not work, it will make it much worse. It is a disgrace that it is happening.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) for securing this important debate on public satisfaction with the NHS. Some important issues have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I will not rehearse them. Suffice it to say that we are having this debate because information has been released as the result of a debacle in the Department, and I am delighted that the information is now available. There may be a good reason for the Secretary of State wanting to keep the contents of the satisfaction report under wraps. It confirms the outstanding NHS legacy that Labour passed to the Health Secretary in 2010. He inherited a national health service that was rescued from 18 years of Tory mismanagement, and now enjoys the highest rate of public satisfaction in its history.
The Ipsos MORI survey, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred, states:
“Public satisfaction with the running of the NHS remains very high at 72%. This high level of satisfaction has now been sustained for over a year making the public’s perception of the NHS a real success story.”
The real reason why the Health Secretary hoped that his Department had not published that report is that it shows him to be completely out of step with the British public. He cites his former boss, Lord Tebbit, as his political hero, but he does not understand what the public so value about the NHS. Instead, he is doing to it exactly what he did to the utilities in the 1980s, when he was working for his hero, Lord Tebbit, by applying 1980s privatisation principles and policies to the health service.
Current polls of public satisfaction with the NHS are all the more important when we consider that the revolution—that is what it is—now under way in the NHS was not described or set out for the British people until some months after the general election. The Conservative manifesto said the Conservatives would
“defend the NHS from Labour’s cuts and reorganisations”,
yet the Government are delivering a real-terms cut in spending, and a radical reorganisation that will undermine the NHS.
Nowhere did the Health Secretary explain his plan to apply 1980s-style privatisation mechanisms to the NHS; to create an economic regulator for health in the form of Monitor, costing upwards of £500 million over the lifetime of this parliament, an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in respect of the Government’s commitment to reduce bureaucracy; to expose the NHS to European competition law, which also applies to our utilities; or to handing the £80 billion NHS budget to private bodies with GPs as figureheads, but to which freedom of information provisions will not apply.
Instead, the Health Secretary spent the previous six years as Opposition spokesman doing everything possible to avoid giving any indication of his plans for radical change for the NHS. I am sure that there was no mention of removing the private patient cap to allow uncontrolled focus on profit-making in hospital trusts, a mechanism that will push NHS patients to the back of the queue.
The Secretary of State’s coyness had paid off, because the public, who are overwhelmingly satisfied with the NHS service that Labour had rebuilt over 13 years in government, did not suspect a thing. Health was not raised once in the last prime ministerial debate before the general election.
I want to focus my remarks on how public satisfaction, and in some areas dissatisfaction, might apply to the Health Secretary’s proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill. Now that the Ipsos MORI survey has found its way into the public domain, we may consider its implications for the current upheaval planned by the Secretary of State. Three specific polls in the survey give a clear indication of public preference for the future of the NHS, with between 63% and 65% agreeing with the following statements: first, the
“NHS provides good value for money to taxpayers”;
secondly, the
“NHS provides patients with the best treatment possible”,
and thirdly,
“people are treated with dignity and respect when they use NHS services.”
In-house NHS provision of a high quality is favoured by the public, but the Tory-led proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill threaten that. Over time, as the private sector wins contracts from NHS bodies, the NHS provider that is displaced will have to close, and there is a risk that we will be left with private companies competing with one another for multi-million pound contracts. That is the Lansley vision of the NHS, and it is completely out of step with British public opinion.
John Pugh
People were asked whether major changes or only minor changes were needed in their local health system. The figures for the UK show that 62% believe that only minor changes are needed, which is by far the highest figure on the graph of most of the comparable systems.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. His point is a good one, and was well made. There is no need for the revolutionary change that we are facing.
Time is limited, so I shall conclude. Without polling and without understanding the facts, the Government would take a reckless step in the dark. If they do not consider public opinion in their annual surveys, they may end up with a shock in the biggest survey of all—the one planned for May 2015.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I shall call Mr Dromey to order at 3.40, so he has a few minutes in which to speak.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. Unaccustomed as I am to being brief, the national health service is the jewel in the crown of public service provision. It was one of the greatest achievements of the post-war Labour Government. It has served this country well for two generations and, as with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), my mother was a nurse who came from County Tipperary to train in a hospital here in London.
The national health service was on its knees in 1997, and was proudly rebuilt by a Labour Government. I see the benefits of that in my constituency and Birmingham as a whole in the magnificent Queen Elizabeth hospital, the health centres such as that in Stockland Green, and the walk-in centres such as those in Kingstanding and Erdington high street. They are served by outstanding staff whom I cannot praise too highly. They range from Erdington consortium of 17 doctors who are deeply committed to the NHS—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is right—staff at all levels of the NHS who are a credit to this country
The problem is the Government’s two fundamental broken promises. They promised to protect spending on the NHS, but in fact there will be real-terms decreases in 143 of the 151 primary care trusts this year. The Government promised no more top-down reorganisation. Instead, they have embarked on the most radical and reckless reorganisation possible, which will have serious consequences for the NHS, and will inevitably see the national taken out of the national health service. The Government should think again about their friendless proposals, and I welcome the expressions of concern from both sides of the Chamber about the ill-thought-out, deeply damaging proposals.
It is not just the NHS that will suffer. So too will some of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, I have been a strong supporter of the muscular dystrophy campaign, one of many organisations which has pointed out that, at the moment, because of economies of scale organised through PCTs, we can count on specialist services that those who suffer from this dreadful wasting disease and their families badly need. It asks what will happen in future if we move to GP consortia and a complete change in the nature of the national health service. It believes that it is being let down by the Government, who are making a fundamental mistake, and I hope that they will think again.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is an essential truth that there is mounting satisfaction with the national health service, just as there was during the Labour Government’s entire period in office. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) for securing a debate on this important subject. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, for the first time.
It has been interesting to hear the different views expressed in this debate. We heard some interesting views from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and I am glad to hear that his GPs are still speaking to him. Perhaps he should listen to a larger group of people who work in the national health service, because he will find that at the moment it is the NHS versus the Government.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), and perhaps we should also put on the record the interest shown by Labour Members. Attending the debate are my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Edmonton (Mr Love), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Leyton and Wanstead, for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). I shall give an honorary mention to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too. I believe they would all speak with one voice: the national health service is popular. It is not perfect, but it is doing a good job. Leave it alone and do the right thing.
In 1997, only 35% of people were very satisfied with the national health service. According to the survey of British social attitudes, that figure rose to 60% under the Labour Government. The NHS became a non-political issue. The Ipsos MORI poll consistently showed that seven out of 10 people described the NHS as a key issue, but by 2009 only one in 10 people felt the NHS to be one of the most important issues for them. As a result, the Conservatives changed their strategy and tried to make the NHS a non-political issue. They tried to adopt it; I remember they did the same with green policies. I was working in the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the time, and for every new idea we thought of, the Conservatives would say, “That is a very good idea; we thought of it first.” They did practically the same thing with the health service.
The Prime Minister led the charge and spoke about the support that his family had received from front-line NHS staff. People wanted to believe him and felt sympathy for him. They understood what he was saying and wanted to believe his promise to protect the NHS. In fact, analysis has shown that attitudes to the Prime Minister changed fundamentally. He went from being seen as an ex-Bullingdon boy and a shadowy ex-adviser to Lord Lamont—
Emily Thornberry
Before the Division, I was talking about the way in which the former Bullingdon boy and shadowy ex-adviser to Lord Lamont was transformed by his seeming commitment to the national health service. People wanted to believe that he wanted to protect public services. When the Prime Minister summed up his priorities as N-H-S, people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Before the last election, the Conservatives made two promises about the NHS. First, they promised to increase spending year on year. Secondly, in November 2009, the Prime Minister told the Royal College of Pathologists:
“With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
They have broken both those promises. Although we have heard them claim that the Secretary of State for Health talked about his proposals on a wet Wednesday afternoon in Wimbledon, the people do not believe it; they were not there to hear it, they do not believe that they voted for it, and they certainly did not vote for it when they voted for the Liberal Democrats, because they believed that they were voting for elected primary care trusts when they voted Lib Dem.
The Conservatives are taking a huge risk by undermining the NHS. Nigel Lawson has said that the NHS is
“the closest thing the English have to a religion”.
People meddle with it at their peril. Going into battle with it, as the Government have done, will be toxic for them.
The Conservatives are at long last realising that they have made a profound mistake, but it is too late, because people know that introducing competition into the heart of the national health service is completely at odds with the NHS ethos of equality and co-operation. That the Conservatives are doing all this without a mandate from the people makes it even worse. Their reforms are causing profound unease among health workers and the public.
The Conservatives are so desperate to cover up and to counter opposition that they have been trying to manipulate public opinion with false statistics. To hear the Prime Minister claim that we are behind the rest of Europe on heart disease and cancer was appalling. He was corrected by Professor John Appleby, who has already been quoted. It is simply inaccurate not to put into the mix the fact that the UK had the biggest fall in heart-attack deaths between 1980 and 2006 of any European country. At that rate, we will have one of the lowest death rates for heart disease. It is a similar story for lung cancer and breast cancer—two of the other main killers. That is, of course, as long as standards continue to improve and the NHS is not distracted by things such as a major reorganisation of the entire NHS.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record some of the real health outcomes in this country. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) summed it up when he said that even if those health outcomes were not improving, there is no causal link between that area and the reforms that the Government propose; does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) agree?
Emily Thornberry
That is right. It is a little like saying, “There are some difficulties with the national health service, so let’s change it,” without looking to see whether those changes will actually attack the problems. None of us says that the national health service is perfect. More things need to be done, but instead of building on our achievements, the Government are undermining the national health service by taking it by the ankles, turning it upside down and shaking it hard. People do not support them in doing that. Some people even heard the Prime Minister say on the “Today” programme that the national health service was second-rate. However, the penny has finally dropped for the Conservatives and they realise that they are not bringing public opinion with them when they seek to undermine the national health service in this way, so instead they have tried to suppress the information that proves that there is huge public support for our NHS as it is now, fundamentally. That is the story of what has been happening in the last few days.
To begin with, we have the unedifying spectacle of the Secretary of State saying that he will not give out certain information about what the public feel about the national health service. Then he discovers that in fact it has been given out. It is wrong of the Conservatives to suppress information about what the public think about the national health service—information that the public have paid for. It shows what their views are, and gives us a baseline before this forthcoming major trauma for the NHS. Then the Secretary of State says, “Actually, I’ve made a mistake. I gave out the information in any event.” That is the other big concern about the present Government. Not only are their reforms fundamentally driven by their ideology, but they are incompetent. There is much criticism of that.
The bottom and top of it is this: the Conservative party can do whatever they want with statistics. They can spin as they wish with whatever they want. They can say black is white until they are red—or blue—in the face, but the truth will out. The truth is that the public love their NHS. Labour gave the Government the national health service on trust. They should work on what we have achieved and tackle any outstanding problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington gave me this quote because he did not have time to use it, but it needs to be said as often as possible. Bevan said:
“The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.”
The NHS does have folk willing to fight for it.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
As others have said today, Mr Bayley, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
We have had an interesting debate. Some speeches were a continuation of what has been said in the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, and they bordered on fantasy. Other speeches were extremely informative. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was in the latter category, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made a reflective and interesting speech. I listened with extreme interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who made a typically thoughtful speech about an area of health and social care on which he is an acknowledged expert. I listened to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), as I often do these days, and to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). It was rather like a curate’s egg—parts of it, depending on which hon. Member was speaking, were all right, and other parts slightly broached on to fantasy island.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) on securing this important debate. He may be surprised to hear that I am in considerable agreement with him on certain areas. I wish to clear up a number of his questions about the surveys. In an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, I alluded to the Ipsos MORI survey. There is something slightly ironic about claiming that we refused to publish it because of its content, given that the previous Government failed to publish similar surveys in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. To say that they did not publish it because the Opposition did not table parliamentary questions asking for it to be published shows breathtaking gall.
The fact is that we published the March 2010 survey following a written answer in December from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is responsible for social care. It was placed in the Library, but it was not placed on the Department of Health website, for which I offer an apology. Some Members referred to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Those statements were made in good faith but he was given the wrong advice. That is unfortunate, but he made that statement some three months after the results of the survey had been published.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked whether we will continue with the survey. I can tell him that a further survey has been done. It has not been completed, in so far as it has not yet been given to the Department, but that will happen in due course. What happens in future remains to be seen, as no decision has been taken on future exercises. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the general life-style survey. Again, no decision has been taken. In light of that information, it is incorrect to say that we will not allow it to proceed.
On the question of the British social attitudes survey, things are a little more complex. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department of Health is not the only Department involved; it is a cross-Government survey, and the Department of Health has some interest in it, but not exclusively so. Again, that is being considered, so I cannot give a definitive answer as to what will happen.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, pointed out that the last survey published by Ipsos MORI said that public satisfaction with the NHS was relatively high. That is self-evident, and I suspect that all hon. Members, as constituency MPs, will be aware of that from their constituents, their correspondence and just talking to people. As we heard, the most recent research puts overall satisfaction rates at 72%.
If we were discussing the future of any other public service, perhaps the debate would end there. However, we are not here today to discuss other public services, such as local bus services or rubbish collections, vital as they are. We are here to discuss the national health service, which for the public is literally a matter of life and death, and they have a high regard for it. People expect the NHS to be there when they are at their most vulnerable, or when their family members are in greatest need.
One cannot quantify what the NHS means to the people of this country with a smattering of national statistics, however comforting they might seem. The public have never been over-inclined to set great store by the pronouncements of politicians about the brilliance of the NHS, however familiar such pronouncements might be. However, people do not live their lives through the monochrome of MORI’s painstaking statistical analyses. They do not judge the NHS on the numbers. They judge the NHS on their experience of it; it is the NHS staff that they meet, and what they say and do, that ultimately informs their opinion.
The fact that satisfaction rates are relatively high is without doubt a tribute to the fact that those staff treat thousands of patients every day. I am sure that Members on both sides of the Chamber are united in their admiration for the work of staff across the board, and we should congratulate them on doing it day in, day out, when looking after our constituents, ourselves and our families. They do a fantastic job. We should never forget that we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.
Mr Burns
No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not have much time.
We should not kid ourselves that that is the whole story. Although some may be only too content with the fact that three quarters of people are happy with the NHS, I am not. High levels of public satisfaction are a genuine compliment to the work of NHS staff, but they do not undermine the case for modernisation or imply that the NHS is perfect or should never change. There is plenty of room for improvement, building on the high satisfaction rates that we already enjoy, as shown by the various surveys mentioned today.
The House will know that although the money going into the NHS has dramatically increased over the last decade, which I welcome, productivity has not. In fact, it has fallen by 0.2% every year since 1997. In hospitals, it has fallen further—by 1.4% a year between 1997 and 2008. However, such statistics can sound quite abstract. We should think about what they actually mean for patients.
Some of the targets and incentives in the current system are simply perverse; far from promoting good-quality care, they encourage poor care. Take maternity services. With antenatal care, the more visits or scans providers can record, the more they are paid. It is in the financial interests of the hospital to provide care on a purely reactive basis, dealing with problems as they arise, rather than preventing them from happening.
The result is poorer health outcomes for the mother and child and a bigger bill for the taxpayer. No midwife or doctor would ever organise the system in such a way. No doctor or nurse working in acute care would design a system in which a hospital would be paid for a mistake rather than be penalised for it. For example, would they pay if a patient were discharged from hospital only to be bounced back into A and E a week or so later because they were not properly treated? No health professional would choose to work in an environment in which they and their colleagues are rewarded not for how well they treat patients, but for how well they process them through the health system.
Hon. Members claim that there is no rationale for our reforms, but they are wrong. I do not claim that the NHS is failing; there is much that is good about it, and much of what it does is internationally acclaimed. None the less, if hon. Members were honest they would accept that there is room for improvement, as was shown by the Ipsos MORI poll.
I do not think that it is right that pensioners over the age of 75 in the primary care trust that serves the constituency of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead are almost twice as likely to be admitted to hospital in an emergency than those over the age of 75 in Devon or Cornwall. I do not think that it is right that, in some parts of the country, people are more than five times more likely to die of heart disease.
In its current form, the NHS cannot hope to cope with the rising demand from our ageing population and the relentless rise in the cost of drugs and treatment. Our health system is no longer battling with infectious disease. The typical patient is not a young man with TB or polio, as it might have been in the 1940s, but someone who is over 75 with probably two, if not more, long-term conditions and social care needs, too. It is a very different problem that requires a very different kind of health service.
Even more importantly, as a nation, we should be aspiring to be as healthy and to live as long as our European neighbours. A recent OECD report found that, if the NHS were to perform as well as the best-performing health systems, we could increase life expectancy by three years. The argument for change could not be clearer.
The ultimate objective of modernisation is to ensure that the quality of care that people receive is on a par with the best available anywhere in the world. To do that, we need to make fundamental changes to the NHS. For example, we need to ensure that it is the GP and not a manager or civil servant in Whitehall who determines the needs and requirements of their patients. A radical extension of patient choice would allow patients to choose not only where they are treated, but which consultant-led team will treat them. Patients could choose their GP and even, where appropriate, their treatment.
There should be greater accountability and transparency in the NHS to give patients the information that they need to make choices and to drive up quality. As the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery said only last week, publicly reporting on the performance of hospitals and surgeons treating patients with heart disease can improve mortality rates by 50%.
There should also be more independence and freedom for clinicians, so that if local health and social care professionals think that they can deliver better services to support stroke patients, they can set up a social enterprise that will do that. We will give genuine freedom to foundation trusts, so that they can strive to provide the best possible outcomes for patients.
In conclusion, there have been a lot of disingenuous statements about privatisation of the health service and the quality of care. If hon. Members are prepared to listen, I will assure them that we have no intention of privatising the health service. We just want to improve patient care.