Oral Answers to Questions

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for her answers, including her very generous and gracious remarks. I wish her a full and speedy recovery.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that Penny Brohn Cancer Care, based near Bristol, which offers a unique combination of physical, emotional and spiritual support designed to help patients live well with the impact of cancer, is an organisation that should be supported? Can she confirm that such organisations are eligible for funds from the cancer drugs fund?

[Anna Soubry]

It is important that we consider all aspects of how we can treat cancers. We also need to bear in mind the people who care for those with cancer, as we sometimes forget them. Any organisation—especially in the charitable sector—that offers treatments that help people and their families and carers is to be welcomed.

NHS Commissioning Board (Mandate)

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

We will publish a sexual health strategy at the end of this year that will look at variation in services across the country and at the kind of problems the hon. Lady raises. It will be led by the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue further.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement will be widely welcomed, especially his emphasis on an integrated system based on the needs of people. Does he not agree, however, that there is far too little use of complementary medicine outside private health care, and that greater use of herbal medicine, acupuncture and the much under-utilised resource in this country of homeopathic medicine, homeopathic doctors and the Society of Homeopaths, would be a good thing? Seventy per cent. of pregnant women in France use homeopathic medicine.

[Mr Hunt]

There are parts of the country where acupuncture is available on the NHS. This will be clinically led. It needs to be driven by the science, but where there is evidence, and where local doctors think that it would be the best clinical outcome for their patients, that is what they are able to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

We have a clearly set out programme for all those trusts, to make sure that they get back to the proper financial controls and proper governance structures that they need. We do not want to get into the business of bailing them out; we want them to stand on their own two feet. That is the vision of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, passed by the hon. Gentleman’s party when it was in government.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend extend the scope of personal budgets? They help not only patients, giving them wider choice, but carers, allowing them to leave their post.

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

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. This is all about giving power to patients. Personal budgets have already been very successful in social care, and there are pilots under way in health care; the indications are that they are proving very successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.

[David Tredinnick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House since 1987; he knows perfectly well that points of order come after statements, not before them. I feel certain that he was just teasing the House and me.

Children’s Cardiac Surgery (Glenfield)

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Westminster Hall

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I offer many congratulations to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who very deservedly received a knighthood recently. I remind him that that is of course a tradition in his constituency, as his predecessor was also knighted. I served with Sir John Farr in my first Parliament, and he did so much for hosiery and knitwear in his constituency. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. It is very nice to see her there.

It is clear from remarks that hon. Members have made that there is universal and cross-party support for retaining children’s services at Glenfield. One of the first decisions of the new Secretary of State for Health was to call the matter that we are debating in for review. That bodes well, because my right hon. Friend did so well with the Olympics that I believe he will do just as well as Secretary of State for Health. His decision shows his light touch. The fact that we now have a second chance to consider the issues, and the welcome arrival of a letter today, saying that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel will commence a full review and report not later than 28 February, is a huge relief for the county. My hon. Friend the Minister has already intervened to point out that she cannot second-guess what it will say, but the point of today’s debate is to give Leicestershire Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to show how concerned we are about the decision and to make some points about it.

I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough or the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who engagingly described my hon. Friend as learned; I think, Mr Hollobone, that we are not allowed to do that any more. Did not the reforms of the House say that we could not call—

[Sir Edward Garnier]

You can make an exception.

[David Tredinnick]

My hon. and learned Friend says I can make an exception for him, and I am delighted to do that.

The first point I want to make is that there is real concern that we are working on faulty statistics. The data used to make the decision were based on 2006-07. We need only consider the recent publication of the census in London to see the huge increase that there has been in population. There are shifting populations, and there is concern that the analysis is fundamentally flawed. It is not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health who has had to consider flawed data recently. What about the west coast main line, whereby we found we were operating with completely inaccurate information? The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) nods his head. This can happen in Departments, and we must take note of it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South have addressed the issue of the ECMO link. To most reasonable people, it seems absurd that the two decisions will not be linked. I am sure that there are legal arguments, but somehow we must get a sensible decision so that both issues can be considered together.

The next point concerns the site of Glenfield. Glenfield is a hugely popular hospital not just with patients, but with surgeons. From, one might say, a feng shui point of view, it is on top of a hill outside the city, and it has a good, clean, clear energy. That is why everybody likes working there: it is nicer for everybody than the Birmingham site, as is proven, I would suggest, by a survey showing that only 2% of the staff in Glenfield want to move to Birmingham. It is not just BBC current affairs programmes that are jumpy about moving out of their current locations, as there is a real problem with the decision to move from Glenfield to Birmingham, as the hon. Member for Leicester South said. The body of knowledge built up over 20 years will dissipate, because many of the people who work at Glenfield simply will not move.

My next point involves the increased pressure on Birmingham, which has been referred to. Can Birmingham deal with it? Somewhere in the briefing papers is a point about Bristol. What happens if something goes wrong at Bristol and patients are moved around? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made the point about the terrible tragedy in Wales, during which patients have been brought to Glenfield. Is it wise to concentrate all the resources in the midlands in one centre? I wonder whether it is.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Birmingham is already having to send patients to Glenfield because it cannot cope with the numbers. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it seems silly to close such a popular centre? As he said, there will be a knock-on effect if other centres close, but patients are already being sent from Birmingham to Glenfield, and children are being sent to different hospitals because there is no room at Birmingham. It seems absolutely crazy that my constituents cannot continue to use the Glenfield hospital, where so much expertise has been created over a number of years.

[David Tredinnick]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, who makes another valid point.

I will not detain the House for long, as other hon. Members want to speak, but I want to make two more points. I have had letters from all over my constituency from people who have benefited from Glenfield. Let us think for a moment. Who put the money into the unit in the first place? Was it all Government money? No, it was not. A lot of charities in Leicestershire have raised money to support the unit. What about their efforts? How will they feel, having struggled over the years to provide a superb local service? It will be a great injustice if that money is dissipated in a reorganisation.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place, and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and all the other Leicestershire Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), across the Floor, who has worked on the issue. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that this is a critical problem. Please help us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow such excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I rise to speak both as the shadow Health Minister and as the Member of Parliament for Leicester West. My constituency is extremely fortunate to include Glenfield hospital. I welcome the members of staff who have taken time out from their busy jobs and travelled a great distance to attend the debate, and I thank them for doing so.

The future of children’s heart surgery matters greatly to the thousands of people who signed the e-petition that has made today’s debate possible. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) for securing the debate. The issue also matters to thousands of families right across the country, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) have attended this afternoon.

The issue of children’s heart surgery has needed to be resolved for many years. Following the findings of the Bristol royal infirmary inquiry 10 years ago, clinicians and professional bodies, including the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, have been very clear that children’s heart services need to change.

The problem is that services in England have grown up ad hoc and are too thinly spread across the country for every child to get the best possible standards of care. That is why the previous Government initiated the Safe and Sustainable review and why we continue to support the principle of fewer, more specialist centres for children’s heart surgery.

The issue is whether the Safe and Sustainable review has fully considered all the relevant clinical evidence in making its recommendations. The review has failed fully to consider the clinical implications of moving services from Glenfield, particularly the children’s ECMO service. I fear that that mistake is about to be repeated, because the new review being conducted by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which we learned about earlier today, will not include discussion of the former Secretary of State’s decision to sign off moving children’s ECMO services from Glenfield to Birmingham.

The two things cannot be separated and are inextricably linked: what happens to the children’s heart surgery happens to ECMO services. It is important to remember that any decisions about nationally commissioned specialist services, such as ECMO, must be signed off by the Secretary of State. I assume that the former Secretary of State made that decision only because of the recommendations of the Safe and Sustainable review, so we need to ensure that any review of those recommendations looks at both ECMO and children’s surgery.

At the risk of repeating the many eloquent speeches that we have heard, Leicester has one of the largest ECMO units in the world and it has long experience, having started in 1989. Glenfield has built up a team of more than 80 ECMO specialists. It is the only unit in the UK that can treat all age groups, which was critical during the H1N1 flu pandemic, because Leicester was able to flex its service to treat up to 10 adults simultaneously while training people working in other adult centres and co-ordinating the national service, triaging all the patients and providing the majority of the patient transport.

[David Tredinnick]

Will the hon. Lady dwell on the mobile service, because that is often a last-hope service for patients? I am informed that, without the mobile service, some patients would not survive.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman has predicted my next sentence. Leicester is also the only unit in England and Wales to provide a mobile ECMO service for babies and children. Once again, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the adult ECMO service from the children’s ECMO services. The two are linked. It is not just about equipment; it is about staff and teams working and learning together.

I do not want to denigrate any hospital’s work, but I understand that Birmingham has neither the capacity to continue the mobile ECMO service nor any plans to develop a mobile ECMO service for children. That is a serious cause for concern and something that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel must consider.

Hon. Members have already talked about the outcomes for ECMO patients at Glenfield being significantly better than elsewhere. This is not anecdotal opinion, but clinically audited, peer-reviewed evidence that has come from the very best clinical databases available in this country and internationally. Independently validated data from the UK paediatric intensive care unit database, or PICANet, show that survival rates are at least 50% higher in Leicester. That difference in mortality is maintained even when the severity of illness treated by Glenfield is taken into account.

Data from the best available international register, provided by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation, support the evidence of good outcomes in Leicester and show that crude mortality rates in Leicester are 19%, but nearly twice as high in other centres, at 35%. Both those independent, validated data sources show the high quality of ECMO care provided at Leicester and bring into sharp focus the risks of closing Glenfield’s children’s ECMO service.

A service cannot simply be picked up and moved to another city without losing vital skills and expertise. It takes years to build up the quality of care to the same level. Interestingly, the Safe and Sustainable review explicitly addresses the time it takes to build up the quality of care in relation to children’s heart surgery. It says that

“clinical outcomes improve with experience”,

due to factors such as team working, as well as the experience of individual clinicians. The review says that this is a

“statistically significant observation in keeping with analysis which demonstrates historically, an 8 - 10 year period of time before such a service matures to produce excellent clinical outcomes”.

If that is so in relation to children’s heart surgery services, it also pertains to children’s ECMO services.

It was unfortunate that, in his letter to the chair of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, the Secretary of State referred simply to moving the equipment of the ECMO service. It is not just equipment; it is about staff. It is clear that the majority of staff at Glenfield will be unable to move due to family commitments. Many of the nurses there have homes, families and children, and they may be second earners. A family cannot simply be uprooted and moved. Indeed, an anonymised survey of all staff at the unit found that 80% are “not at all likely” to move to Birmingham. Significantly, none of the ECMO specialists who replied to the survey were able to consider working in Birmingham.

I am concerned that the Safe and Sustainable review has not considered the evidence about ECMO in sufficient detail. The review panel took advice about the future of ECMO services from the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services. There was no representative from any UK or international professional ECMO body on the advisory group, so it commissioned a report from ECMO experts, including Dr Kenneth Palmer, director of the ECMO unit at Karolinska university, whom several hon. Members have mentioned.

Following that report, the advisory group said that it would be “possible” to move Glenfield’s children’s ECMO service. However, the question is not whether it is possible, but whether it is desirable and whether it makes sense to move one of the best-performing services—if not the best, not just in this country but in Europe and internationally. That would not be considered in respect of children’s heart surgery services, so why consider that for ECMO?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention. I will explain why the Secretary of State has not been able to review the previous Secretary of State’s decision in this way. However, I am making it clear that the IRP will look at the implications of the decisions, and I will shortly turn to why the previous Secretary of State’s decision is not part of the process. I will then answer some of the specific points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Leicester South, but I want to finish dealing with the IRP.

More generally, in undertaking its review—this may assist my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey—the IRP will interview and take evidence from a number of parties, including, but not limited to, NHS organisations, local authorities and local Members of Parliament. That will normally include evidence used in developing recommendations and proposals, taking decisions and national guidance.

I turn to the specific point about why the decision to move the children’s ECMO services over to Birmingham from Glenfield is not part of the review, or at least part of today’s decisions. Decisions about ECMO for children at Leicester being moved to Birmingham follow from the decision to transfer heart surgery to Birmingham. In other words, it was a consequence of the JCPCT’s decision. Children’s ECMO services are a nationally commissioned service, so the decision was taken by the Secretary of State, not the JCPCT. The Secretary of State made his decision based on the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services. To be clear, the JCPCT having made the decision, AGNSS then looked at the children’s ECMO services at Leicester and recommended to the Secretary of State that, in light of the JCPCT’s decision, those services should also be transferred to Birmingham.

I want to make it clear that it is unfortunate that the word “equipment” has been used. I am more than aware that the matter involves considerably more than pieces of equipment at Glenfield, and I pay full tribute to the team who work there, and indeed to the children’s heart surgery team there and to every team throughout the country. It is important to make it clear that no one is saying that a good service is not being provided, or that a service is bad or poor. The issue is all about ensuring that we get the very best service in fewer but bigger centres.

[David Tredinnick]

The Minister said that the issue is all about patients getting the best service, but I take her back to the point about the mobile service, which has been the subject of the thoughts of various hon. Members. Is there any way we can ensure that that aspect of the service is fully considered? If Birmingham will not commit to providing a mobile service, it is crystal clear that a number of patients will suffer.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention. It may be argued that that is one of the implications of the JCPCT’s decisions. The children’s ECMO services at Leicester are being been moved over to Birmingham. That is an implication of that decision. Another implication is that there are concerns about the mobile unit for children’s ECMO as well.

The previous Secretary of State accepted the recommendations of AGNSS—the advisory group for national specialist services—and it is that information to which the hon. Member for Leicester South referred when he told us about his meetings with the then Minister, now the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). The recommendations of AGNSS are made to the Secretary of State, on, as I understand it, a confidential basis. It is not normal for them to be disclosed, but the previous Secretary of State made his decision based on the advice of that service.

The question, as it has been rightly put today, is whether there is any challenge now to that decision. I am told that that is for the Secretary of State; he can, in exceptional circumstances, revisit that decision if those exceptional circumstances are made out. If the IRP wants another full review of all that has happened—it effectively calls into question the whole process, and so on—it obviously flows from that that the ECMO children’s service at Leicester must be retained in that event, because it flows from the JCPCT’s decision about where to have the specialist children’s heart services. In any case, if there is some other new or exceptional evidence that can be placed before the Secretary of State, or that he is aware of, he may be able to look again at the decision that was made by the previous Secretary of State. I hope that that is of some help. I can go no further and give no more detail, except, safe to say, that I am told that that is a rare and unusual event.

I remind everyone, as I conclude my remarks, what led to the review, the recommendations and the decisions. Concern about children’s heart services began a long time ago as a result of serious incidents in Bristol back in the 1990s. For some 15 years, therefore, it has been accepted, almost by everyone, that children’s heart surgeries were of great concern. National patient groups all agreed that what was needed was to ensure that we had surgeons, nurses and other health professionals based in larger, but fewer, specialised centres. That is why, as the hon. Member for Leicester West has identified, the previous Government set up the review. In many ways, it took courage to do so, because there had been a lot of talk about the issue but not much action. Everyone agreed absolutely that reducing the number of centres was necessary, so that we would have bigger numbers of surgeons, nurses and other specialists, and that the service could be better, but in fewer units. Therefore, to put it crudely, somebody was always going to lose out.

Although I have listened with great care to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), this is an example in which we do not want a greater number of smaller units; it is a good example of where we want fewer, but much bigger units. It is perhaps worth remembering that children’s heart surgery has advanced considerably over the years, so that surgeons now operate on children who are often only two days old, with hearts the size of walnuts. It is argued that that is the most specialist, delicate and difficult of all surgery.

It is not surprising, given the service’s nature—the fact that it is for children and babies—that so many people who have experienced what Glenfield provides speak with such passion about it, and why they are so concerned about its future. That, too, goes for other places that have been told their facilities will be moved away—for example, from Leeds up to Newcastle. I pay tribute to all who have gone to the trouble of signing the e-petition in support of Glenfield. I can speak about the great campaign that was organised, having attended a Leicester Tigers rugby match some time last year; every seat had a leaflet on it and an event was organised in support of Glenfield. Other places, too, have organised campaigns, and rightly so. It is an indication of the passion and loyalty that such services engender in people.

There has, however, been a long process. There has been an independent review, aimed at ensuring that our children are operated on safely and given the very best services. As a result, tough decisions have been taken by the JCPCT. It has done that independently, and with considerable support from clinicians, royal colleges and many eminent bodies, as well as others who have spoken out in favour the proposals. However, today’s decision by the Secretary of State is to be welcomed. Everybody can now be assured that there will be an independent review of the decision—I stress the word “independent”. I have also made my observations about the possibility, if there is new evidence in exceptional circumstances, that the previous Secretary of State’s decision about the future of children’s ECMO at Glenfield may also be considered.

I hope that that will give some reassurance to hon. Members who have attended the debate. All their comments are listened to by both the Department and me. It is to be hoped that the review will be thorough, as I am sure that it will be, and swift; it will be concluded by the end of February.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish the allocations for 2013-14 later this year. However, we are ensuring, I think rightly, that the allocations to clinical commissioning groups for NHS services reflect the population, because they have a responsibility for the whole population. Some parts of the country, particularly London, have substantial unregistered populations, which often include the groups who are most at risk.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of his important initiatives that could reduce health inequalities is the development of personal care budgets, which give real power and choices to patients, and also have the potential to reduce hospital admissions and costs?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, since the election we have pushed forward with offering access to a personal care budget to those who are in receipt of care and support. At the time of the last election, about 168,000 people were exercising that right. The figure now is over 432,000, and we are extending the scheme so that, for example, people in receipt of continuing health care through the NHS will not lose the opportunity for personal care when the NHS takes over that responsibility; instead, that will continue as a personal budget under the NHS.

Care and Support

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman simply demonstrates his ignorance of what is in the White Paper. Those who work in social care, those who represent care users, care recipients and carers want the changes in legislation and in support to focus on looking after people. That is absolutely our agenda. We know that there are funding needs. That is why, in the spending review, we have provided the sums that I have set out. That will enable local authorities to maintain their eligibility to care. This year, only six authorities have reduced their level of eligibility to care from moderate to substantial.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement will be widely welcomed, especially the loans aspect and the emphasis on personal care budgets. Will he confirm that his Department’s trials are showing that personal care budgets are very effective in empowering patients, reducing costs and bringing in a wider range of services and greater patient choice?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A study published in the latter part of last year demonstrated exactly what he has set out. There has been a major increase in access to personal budgets. When we came to office, about 168,000 people had access to a personal budget. The latest figures show that we have reached 432,000 people. We are aiming for everyone who wants it to have access to a personal budget by April 2013. The draft Bill that we have published today would give legal backing to that and to access to direct payments.

Cosmetic Surgery

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who is not only the Chair of the Health Committee but who was, of course, Secretary of State for Health in the Major Government. I think I can say modestly that I have been in Parliament long enough to remember him as an Under-Secretary in the Department of Health—at that time, of course, he was the MP for Loughborough—although I have not been in Parliament as long as he has.

I do not wish to repeat the remarks that were made earlier by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, other than to say that we are basically dealing with a French company—Poly Implant Prothèse, or PIP— that produced a defective product. It then used false documentation—my recollection is that it did so by registering in Germany; I think that came up in the Health Committee. The company was also using non-compliant silicone. My right hon. Friend also said that there was a period—between March 2010 and July 2011—when there was a lack of action. The Health Committee was certainly concerned about why my hon. Friend the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health did not look at the issue earlier.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood has already given us the background, so I do not want to go into it further, but there are two types of issue to consider: first, the PIP implants, which are the defective products; and secondly, the wider issues.

Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes have mentioned the lack of a register, which is a fundamental problem. Without a register, we do not know the size of the problem. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that issue in her response.

The second issue that really exercised me when the Select Committee was considering this topic was what I noted down as “the double jeopardy rule”—it is not quite a double jeopardy rule, but a woman will potentially need two operations if they have this problem. The NHS is looking to offer more patient choice and greater flexibility, and dealing with this issue is a good opportunity to provide greater flexibility. It makes absolutely no sense to have a surgeon remove an implant and then to have another surgeon at another time replace it with something else. First, I think it is clinically unwise; I do not know if my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes wants to comment on that. Secondly, it is certainly bad value. Thirdly, it means that the patient will have a much higher level of stress. I would have thought that statistically the probability of complications must be greater if a patient has two operations rather than one.

The third issue that I want to raise is advertising. The advertising for these products appears to be misleading, to say the least. We have heard that there is a failure to mention the inevitable requirement for removal of the implants. It is not only the surgeons or the promoters of the operation who should make patients aware of that requirement, but the advertising, which should carry a warning at the bottom.

The next point about advertising of these products is that I think a lot of it is targeted at less well-off people—a market in which people might not necessarily apply their minds as extensively as people in some other socio-economic groups might do to the consequences of these implants. A culture, or belief, has grown up around implants that they will enhance careers and make a person more attractive, which may not necessarily be the case.

Taking things a stage further, when teenagers are encouraged to have implants there is an absolute duty of care on those who promote them to explain to those concerned that although they may not be very full in the front at that age, if they have children they will naturally expand and have no need for implants. Furthermore, if they reach that point of having children, they may not want the implants that they received earlier. We need to think particularly about the market involving younger people.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood and the Committee agreed to the web forum on patient experiences, which was a very good exercise. Select Committees should consider using such an approach regularly in the future. We had responses from 194 women, and there were 279 posts. That widened the base of the pyramid of knowledge that the Committee had to reflect on, provided a greater degree of certainty about where things are going, and gave us understanding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes touched on the long-term consequences of ruptures and the fact that that issue has not been fully recognised in the responses so far. Last week we had a presentation in private by distinguished academics from the university of Leeds. One point that came up was that if the silicone leaks, it can find its way into glands and lymph nodes. I cannot believe that that is a desirable impact for any patient. It defies logic to suggest that if there is a foreign body in a part of someone’s body there will be no complications or implications; and if there are none now, where will we be 30 or 40 years down the road? As a Member who has represented a constituency with a declining coal mining industry, I deal even now—30, 40 or 50 years down the road—with cases of emphysema and other mining-related diseases. What will happen after that length of time with the issue we are discussing now? We simply do not know. We cannot tell.

Dr Hardy and Professor Holliday at Leeds made two recommendations, which I am not going to claim as my own, and which merit serious consideration. The first is that all advertising should carry the risk rate. I am thinking both of advertisements and the agents’ recommendations to the client. There should be an absolute requirement to explain complications, and the fact that implants will have to be replaced at some time. The failure to tell patients that implants must, whether faulty or not, be replaced at some point, came through on many occasions in evidence.

The second point was also an excellent one: the contract that the patient forms should be not with the agency, which could fold, but with the surgeon, who is covered by a form of insurance, and tightly regulated. Any issue in the future would be with the surgeon himself. That would give us a much greater degree of accountability and make the regulation much more simple.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

Sadly, as I only have about five minutes left, I will not be able to answer all the issues that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), raised.

[David Tredinnick]

On a point of order, Mr Rosindell. My understanding is that the debate can continue at the discretion of the Chair.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Yes, indeed that is so. I intend to let the debate run on a bit longer to allow the Minister to respond and Mr Dorrell to have his two minutes towards the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Milton]

My only hesitation is that there might be constraints that I know nothing about. However, I can see no reason why not if the evidence has been assessed. The evidence will, almost by definition, be in the public domain because it will be in papers that have been peer-reviewed and probably published. There should therefore be no reason why it should not be available to all women.

My right hon. Friend raises an important point: it is not just about what one does, but about what one is seen to do. Any restriction on access to information raises suspicions in people’s minds. All those women have already had a bad experience—they had their surgery and were reassured by surgeons and staff at the organisations they went to—and already feel that they have been deceived. Therefore, it is more important than ever to make sure that they have access to the information that we have access to.

As I said, Sir Bruce’s group has published its final report, which was informed by detailed tests on the silicone used in PIP implants and by large-scale data on the rupture rate of the implants. It draws on what doctors found when they removed some implants. It was painstaking work, and three main conclusions stand out. It is important to reiterate that research—data—should always be under constant review.

First, the evidence supports the fact that impurities in silicone gel do not pose a threat to health. That fits with the conclusions of tests on the gel carried out in the UK and other countries. Secondly, there is clear evidence that the rupture rate for PIP implants is significantly greater than for other silicone gel implants on the UK market. Thirdly, although some ruptures are associated with local clinical reactions, in the great majority of cases, that was already apparent before removal of the implant. So-called silent ruptures detected by scanning, but with no outward signs or symptoms of a possible rupture, are not in general associated with significant clinical reactions when the implants are taken out. The group therefore concluded that PIP implants are clearly substandard—there is no doubt about that—but that if the implants are still whole inside the body, there is no evidence of an increased risk of clinical problems.

I stress that that is not what the Government say; it is what an expert group says. I am happy to send anybody who wants it the list of who made up that expert group. It is important and it is about confidence in what we are doing. Ministers are not scientists. It is important that we rely on and get the best possible scientific advice, and that we remain vigilant in scrutinising that advice.

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

[David Tredinnick]

My hon. Friend might be about to move on to this, but did the expert group consider the points made about two operations for people having problems with implants? She will probably deal with that in a moment, but she will forgive me for nudging her.

[Anne Milton]

I need no nudging, but I take my hon. Friend’s intervention in the friendly manner in which it was intended. I will move on to that.

The group reiterated the earlier advice that women with evidence of ruptured implants should be offered removal, and women with no sign of rupture should talk to their specialists, discuss the pros and cons of removal and decide with their doctor the best way forward.

In January 2012, in line with the interim advice, we published the NHS offer: women who originally received implants from the NHS are entitled to a consultation and a scan if appropriate. Then if the woman and her doctor so decide, the NHS will offer to remove and replace the implants. From the start, we made it clear that we expected private providers to match that offer. Many have done so. In fairness and for balance, I point out that some have been very responsible. I hesitate to mention some, as the list will not be conclusive, but BMI Healthcare, Linea Cosmetic Surgery, Nuffield Health, Ramsay Health Care, Spire Healthcare, The Hospital Group and Transform have been responsible and stepped up to the plate. It would be a shame if this debate cast negative views on all those involved in the plastic surgery industry, but I will come to some of the other points raised before I finish.

Where a private provider has gone out of business or fails to meet its moral and legal obligations, the NHS will provide a consultation, a scan if appropriate and removal, but not normally replacement, of the implants. That policy remains in place today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) wanted me to go on to the question whether the policy should be varied. As has been reiterated today, the Select Committee on Health suggested that women should be able to pay a fee for new implants to be put in place by the NHS during the same operation in which the old ones are taken out. I completely understand why, and I have discussed the issue at length.

There are several points. Allowing a mixture of NHS and privately funded care within a single operation risks undermining a founding principle of the NHS that care is free. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) about co-payments in the NHS for dentistry, glasses and so on—I could go on. I believe that Bevan resigned within two or three years of the formation of the NHS, on that very point. The issue of co-payments goes back a long time. However, I feel that this situation, although complicated, is different. If the NHS were to carry out replacement breast augmentation, it would become responsible for all the aftercare, including possible future replacements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood mentioned, the rupture rate is significant anyway. Breast implants do not last a lifetime; it is unlikely that they will.

NHS Annual Report and Care Objectives

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

At no point did the shadow Secretary of State express any appreciation for what the staff of the NHS have achieved in the past year. A party political rant populated with most of his misconceptions and poorly based arguments does not get him anywhere.

The right hon. Gentleman went around the country trying to drum up something he could throw at us about things that he believed were going wrong in the NHS. Do you know what he ended up with, Mr Speaker? He ended up by saying the NHS was rationing care. What was the basis for that? That parts of the NHS have restrictions on weight-loss surgery, because people have to be obese before they have access to it. That is meaningless. I wrote to the shadow Secretary of State this morning, and went through his so-called health check. There is no such ban on surgery as he claims. Time and again, he says, “Oh, they are rationing.” They are not, because last year, the co-operation and competition panel produced a report that showed where there had been blanket bans on NHS services under a Labour Government. We introduced measures to ensure that that would not happen in future across the service. Not only is he not giving the NHS credit for the achievements that I listed in detail in my statement but he is now pretending that the NHS is somehow in chaos or financial trouble. It is complete nonsense. Across the NHS, only three primary care trusts out of 154 were in deficit at the end of the year. The cumulative surplus across all the PCTs and strategic health authorities is £1.6 billion carried forward into this financial year.

That means that the NHS begins 2012-13 in a stronger financial place than anyone had any right to expect, because it is delivering better services more effectively, with GP referrals reduced, and reduced growth in the number of patients attending emergency departments. The right hon. Gentleman asked, “What about patients who leave A and E without being seen?” Under the Labour Government, no one ever measured whether patients left A and E without being seen. For the first time, we are measuring that, and we publish the results in the A and E quality indicators. There was a variation between about 0.5% and 11% of patients leaving without being seen when we first published that, but since then the variation has reduced. The average number has gone down, and it is now at 3%, so he ought to know his facts before he stands up at the Dispatch Box and begins to make accusations. We published those facts for the first time.

I will not reiterate the A and E target, because I mentioned it in the statement, but 96% of patients are seen within four hours in A and E. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw all those absurd propositions that the NHS is not delivering. He should get up when next he can and express appreciation to the NHS for what it is achieving. Patients do so: last year, 92% of in-patients and 95% of out-patients thought that they had good or excellent care from the NHS, which is as high as in any previous year. That is what patients feel. Staff should be proud of what they achieve in the NHS, and the Labour party should be ashamed of itself.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement, which is very positive, will be widely welcomed, particularly what he said about low waiting times. He said that patients in future will be more in control. Is he referring to the personal health budgets in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and does he expect a greater range of treatments to be available on the health service in future?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many ways in which we can improve the control that patients can exercise, including greater opportunities for patients to exercise choice. In my announcement today, that includes the opportunity for patients to choose alternative providers of NHS care if, for example, the standard of 18 weeks that the constitution sets is not met. I might say that, at the last election, 209,000 patients were waiting for treatment beyond 18 weeks. That number has been brought down to 160,000.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the exercise of control on the part of patients, who have an opportunity to access clinically appropriate care through the NHS. We will make sure that that is available and, as he knows, in relation to homeopathic treatments, for example, we have maintained clinicians’ ability across the service to make such treatments available through the NHS when they think that it is appropriate to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

If I could explain this to the hon. Gentleman, the £500 million that he is talking about was part of the savings made through renegotiating the IT contract. It is a perfectly normal procedure, because as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will know, the average figure for previous years was £850 million, and one year when he was a Minister at the Department of Health, it was £2.3 billion.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

As part of the reorganisation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided—rightly in my view—that the Health Professions Council will regulate Chinese medical practitioners, but there is widespread concern in the community that these practitioners will not have protection of title. Will he please ensure that they do when he finishes his consultation?

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and, as his question suggested, there is a consultation process. I can give him an assurance that the point that he has made will be fully considered as part of that consultation process.

Health and Social Care Bill

David Tredinnick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I refer the hon. Lady to pages 46 and 47 of the Conservative party manifesto and, to understand the Bill fully, to the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I encourage my right hon. Friend to read the minutes of the Hinckley and Bosworth health and wellbeing partnership meeting. He will see that clinical commissioning groups are in place and that there is a priority on early intervention. There is support for the health and wellbeing board and its priorities. Does that not go completely against what we are hearing from Opposition Members?

[Mr Lansley]

I had the pleasure—before Christmas, I think—of meeting the local authority, the director of public health and the three clinical commissioning groups from across Leicestershire, who are all enthusiastic about the opportunities presented by the modernisation of the NHS legislation.