Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There has been no national removal of ear wax services, which can still be commissioned locally. NICE guidance is clear on the types of services that should be commissioned. Traditional methods of manual ear syringing are no longer offered for safety reasons, but electronic irrigation and microsuction should be being offered. If his local CCG is not commissioning such services, I am happy to meet him and them to discuss why not.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

GPs provided the service for decades. We all understand why the NICE guidance means that they no longer offer syringing, but there is a gap in that many clinical commissioning groups are not offering alternative services. We are talking about people with dementia or receiving end-of-life care who literally cannot hear and are going deaf. The Minister must be direct with CCGs on this issue.

[Maria Caulfield]

My hon. Friend is right that there must be consistency across the country in how those procedures are commissioned. After today’s questions I will take this up with officials to see why that is not happening consistently across the country.

Physical Activity and Health Outcomes

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.

For many years, I have championed the issue of supporting as many people as possible to achieve a healthy weight, an important issue in health prevention which matters today more than it ever has. It is also so important to remember that even if achieving a healthy weight is a real challenge and our body mass index is not yet as we would want it, the more physical activity we can do the better. Tonight, I want to issue a call to arms on the related issue of being sufficiently physically active to help us all lead healthy lives.

I start by paying tribute to Peter Walker, a parliamentary correspondent who works in this building, for his outstanding book “The Miracle Pill”. It was published last year and it should be required reading for everyone working in health and social care, everyone who cares about the NHS, and leaders across central Government and local government, as well as in business.

Let us look at the health benefits of regular physical activity. If we could achieve those outcomes with a pill, it would indeed be the miracle pill. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of breast cancer by 20%, the risk of dementia, depression and colon cancer by 30%, the risk of cardiovascular disease by 35% and the risk of type 2 diabetes by up to 40%. Hip fractures, which are so often catastrophic in their consequences for the frail and elderly, are reduced by up to a whopping 68% by regular physical activity. Those are all NHS figures.

I am grateful for the good work of the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine UK on its Moving Medicine programme, which is designed to promote a person-centred approach to physical activity in health, and its Active Hospitals programme, which focuses on delivering physical activity through secondary care. Both programmes have won awards from the Royal College of Physicians and have now been adopted in Australasia and the United States. Active Conversations is also an excellent training course to increase physical activity for all health and social care professionals, social prescribers and the fitness industry.

It is good to see that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, a very important new part of the Department of Health and Social Care, has a number of important online resources on physical activity and health, including on the treatment of long-term conditions. As a leading academic in the area, Ralph Paffenbarger, said, “Anything that gets worse as you grow older gets better when you exercise.” As another public health expert put it, slightly more bluntly,

“being active throughout your life is about being able to get to the loo on time in your old age”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am not someone who has to get to the toilet early, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; I spoke to him beforehand.

I make a plug for children to take action early against physical and health conditions. In Northern Ireland, 20% of children are classed as overweight and 6% are classed as obese, and I understand that those figures are reflected on the mainland. The need to change our way of doing things is very clear. Targeted funding for children in schools, which has fallen by the wayside as a result of covid, must be re-established, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree. The importance of daily mile walks must be promoted in every region of the UK. Start it early—and at a later stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not have to run to the toilet.

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the daily mile. I thank him for championing it in Northern Ireland. It will absolutely make a difference; I hope he will encourage all schools in Northern Ireland to take part.

How are we doing as a nation in achieving the necessary levels of physical activity? The answer, I am afraid, is not very well at all. According to a briefing that I have received from the Royal College of General Practitioners, 34% of men and 42% of women in the UK are not active enough for good health, and physical inactivity is responsible for one in every six UK deaths—the same proportion as is caused by smoking. Some 27% of the population are classified as inactive, meaning that they do less than 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, such as walking, each week.

It is getting worse. By 2030, we are on track to be 35% less active than we were in 1960. Most shockingly of all, a third of children do less than half the recommended physical activity for their age. The findings of the 2015 NHS health survey for children are even worse: they show that fewer than a quarter of children reach the required minimum of one hour’s moderate to vigorous physical activity every day on average. It is worth pausing to consider what to do about that. The curriculum is very full and the Department for Education is reluctant to mandate physical activity, while the Department of Health and Social Care’s remit does not extend to ordering the school day. Do we need the Cabinet Office to start taking a serious cross-Government interest in the issue for children, and indeed throughout later life?

What will happen if we continue on current trends? Justin Varney, who was formerly the head of adult wellbeing for Public Health England and is now in charge of public health in Birmingham, says that

“the whole concept of an NHS and welfare state, in whatever form we have it, is completely unsustainable if a third or more of the population remain physically inactive.” 

It is not as if we have only just realised the importance of sufficient physical activity to our health. Back in 1948, Dr Jerry Morris was appointed the first director of the Social Medicine Unit, a Government body tasked with examining the way in which health issues interacted with people’s circumstances. His major initial research involved looking into why the drivers of London’s double-decker buses had significantly higher rates of heart attacks than their conductor colleagues. His conclusion was that the only real difference between the groups, who were from identical backgrounds, was that the former spent their days sitting down, while the latter were constantly on their feet going up and down flights of stairs. The hard facts are that for many of us, the way in which we work and the way in which we travel are taking years off what should be our healthy life expectancy. This is a big issue, but it is not remotely getting the attention that it deserves.

What can we do about it? The answer is a very great deal, if we have the political will and really value our NHS rather than just paying lip service to it, and if we follow the academic research and learn from existing best practice around the world. Making active travel possible is the single biggest health intervention that the Government could make. Walking and cycling are the easiest ways to integrate physical activity into our daily lives. Two thirds of journeys in the UK are under 5 miles and could be cycled in half an hour by those who are capable, but only 2% are cycled. E-bikes, of course, help the elderly and those in less good health, and make cycling much more inclusive. Staggeringly, 1.5 billion journeys of less than a mile are made in cars every year, so there is an enormous potential to do better. Active travel can meet 23% of the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity needs on school days for primary-age children and 36% for secondary-age children. People who cycle to work take fewer days off sick than their car-driving colleagues, so cycling is good for the economy.

Those who are not so far tempted to consider a daily commute by bicycle should read a 2017 British Medical Journal article by Carlos Celis-Morales, which used UK Biobank data to follow 250,000 people over five years. It showed that people who commuted by bicycle had a 40% lower chance of dying during the study period. I am among those who want cycling to be for the many not the brave, and we need our roads to be safe, but the statistical reality is that for many of us, it is far safer in health terms to be on a bicycle than in a car or on the sofa.

I support the work that the Department for Transport is doing to deliver the Prime Minister‘s vision in which half all journeys in towns and cities will be cycled or walked by 2030. This plan is backed by a £2 billion package of funding for active travel over five years under the inspirational leadership of Chris Boardman, the interim active travel commissioner for Active Travel England. The plan includes delivering safe routes for cycling and walking, cycle training for all children and adults who want it, and creating active travel social prescribing pilots. Employers who care about the wellbeing of their staff as well as the productivity of their businesses should be right behind that. I also look forward to the publication of the second four-year statutory cycling and walking investment strategy this spring to reflect the new policies in “Gear Change” and the multi-year funding settlement from the spending review.

This is not a pipe dream. It is happening now in Copenhagen, where 40% of commuting trips are made by bike, and I suspect that the rate is not much lower in Amsterdam. That did not happen by chance in either of those cities; it happened because of visionary leaders who cared about the wellbeing of their residents and pursued this policy over decades.

We can do more in the workplace as well. The Googleplex offices in Mountain View, California, are designed to encourage as much physical movement by staff as possible. That includes using nature between buildings as well as what happens in them. Most of the workspace is on the second storey, and all the meeting rooms and cafés, and every single toilet apart from the accessible ones, are on the ground level, connected by courtyard-style staircases.

So, what are UK businesses doing to build some mobility into what has become an excessively sedentary culture? Sitting still for too long is not good for us. I have come across one Defence Minister, one female general, one House of Commons Clerk and one Hansard recorder who conduct meetings standing up or who have a standing desk. It is the exception rather than the rule, and when I had the pleasure of discussing Peter Walker’s excellent book with him recently, I made sure we did so while walking around St James’s Park. I wonder whether the Department of Health and Social Care and the House of Commons Commission have looked at the BeUpstanding programme, a free world-leading project that improves the health and wellbeing of desk-based workers ? If not, why not?

I mentioned earlier that only between a quarter and a third of UK schoolchildren were undertaking the recommended amount of physical activity. I am a huge fan of the daily mile initiative, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to, where children run or walk a mile at the start of each day. There are 7,289 schools in England and 1,191 in Scotland doing this, which is commendable. I would like to see that number grow substantially, including in Wales and Northern Ireland.

There is another country in Europe, however, that is doing even better. The global report card shows that of the 49 countries covered, Slovenia has the best results for activity levels in children, with more than 80% of those aged six to 19 meeting the one-hour-a-day threshold for activity. Frankly, that puts the United Kingdom to shame, notwithstanding the tremendous daily mile initiative. Again, this did not happen by chance. It was a conscious decision that equipped every school with two gyms and an outdoor play area as well as track and field facilities, and with five sports days per year and another week off for outdoor activities.

I wonder whether we fully use the fantastic expertise of our diplomatic network to really understand the best practice in public health around the world. If the Department of Health and Social Care is unaware of the level of commuting in Copenhagen or the outstanding physical activity achievements of Slovenian children, I would urge the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the relevant briefings are provided to her and her officials so that we can copy what is working well elsewhere.

It is really important to emphasise that even if we cannot do our 10,000 steps every day or, as adults, 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of intense exercise a week, every little helps. It is also really important to understand the difference between formal activity and incidental activity. Sport is brilliant and I want to see as many people as possible of both sexes and all ages participating, but the evidence suggests that the biggest gains will be from the minor adjustments we make in our everyday lives, such as using the stairs rather than the lift, getting off the bus one stop early, finding a parking space some way away from our office or meeting, or taking up a hobby we enjoy such as dancing. One of the best things that the Whips Office has ever done for me is to put me on the fifth floor of Portcullis House, giving me the opportunity to climb the 137 steps to my office on a regular basis throughout the day. I am not sure it was meant as a favour, but I am genuinely grateful.

I implore the whole of central and local government to wake up to the importance of this issue and all of us to play our part in keeping as active as possible in every way that is open to us. With good policies and the political will, we can make the right thing to do the easy and affordable thing to do for more and more people.

Access to NHS Dentistry

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to my local dentists and the whole team of dental staff who support them. They do amazing work, and almost all of them went above and beyond during the pandemic.

I have to express a bit of concern about the information that the Minister’s officials may be feeding her. I got a letter on 16 December from NHS East of England direct commissioning, which said: “Having conducted a search of dental practices in the Leighton Buzzard area, I can confirm that of the 47 dental practices, six are accepting new NHS patients.” The letter goes on to say that there are 30 others that have not been heard from. I received an email only this morning from a couple in Leighton Buzzard who said that they have given up trying to find an NHS dentist. A lady in Dunstable wrote yesterday to say that the local waiting list is two years. Another constituent wrote to say that they had been turned away by emergency dentists to which NHS 111 had referred them.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Would it be too difficult for the NHS to have a list, for every constituency, of every dental practice and its situation? That way, the NHS, patients and MPs would know what the situation is, and we could change that situation.

[Andrew Selous]

The Father of the House is absolutely right; the point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) earlier. I do not think that the data are nearly good enough, and I do not see how Ministers can have proper oversight if we do not actually know what is happening.

When the letter of 16 December says, “having conducted a search of dental practices in the Leighton Buzzard area,” I fear that the person who wrote it sat at their desk and went on Google to find out. I do not think they actually came to the town. I do not think that they walked around and spoke to the dentists, the local Healthwatch, or the people in the town. How can the Minister have accurate information if what we get from the officials—that was from an official letter from the NHS to me—does not actually reflect what is happening in the town?

We are struggling now, but my area, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), is scheduled to have another 14,000 houses; they have been consented and are being built now. I have a major campaign on ensuring that general practice capacity keeps up with major new housing developments. How can we do that for dentists too if we already have a deficit? Will the money follow those huge new housing developments in many of our constituencies? We need answers on that too. If the Minister is able to give further information on that, either when she replies, or perhaps by letter afterwards, that would be really helpful.

We have heard from many colleagues about the issue of children’s teeth. I am informed that tooth decay is the No. 1 reason for hospital admissions of young children. That shows the importance of prevention and getting it right, and the whole issue of sugary drinks. I recognise the help that fluoridisation gives, but children’s oral health is a huge issue.

One or two colleagues—including, I think, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—mentioned older people’s dental care; I had a debate on that in the Chamber. It is a subject that we often do not talk enough about, particularly with people in care homes. Do the managers of those homes ensure that staff help the patients to brush their teeth? What about the oral care of people receiving domiciliary care? Is that budgeted in? It is serious; it can lead to malnutrition and all sorts of problems. There was a major Care Quality Commission report, which was only on the care home sector, in June 2019, called “Smiling matters”. It would be good to have an update from the Minister on how we are doing in ensuring that older people’s dental care is also taken proper care of.

We know that the current contract, about which most of us have been complaining, was introduced in 2006—so quite some time ago—but back in June 2009, there was an excellent independent review about what we needed to do about it by Professor Jimmy Steele. I will quote from one paragraph of it:

“Through the NHS, dentistry could take a huge step forward but in order to do that, one concept is critical. So long as we see value for taxpayers’ money as measured by the production of fillings, dentures, extractions or crowns, rather than improvements in oral health, it will be difficult to escape the cycle of intervention and repair that is the legacy of a different age.”

I think that the Steele report got it right. However, that was under the previous Administration, in June 2009. I am told that the work on reform started in 2011, and yet here we are, in 2022. I think that what we are all saying to the Minister—who is diligent and I know cares about these matters—is that we really need some urgency.

On the number of dentists, perhaps slightly surprisingly, and perhaps contrary to some of what we have heard today, I had an email yesterday from the British Dental Association saying,

“We don’t really have a shortage of dentists in England—the number of dentists registered with the General Dental Council is in fact almost 2,000 higher now than it was in 2018. The key problem is that these dentists increasingly don’t want to work in the NHS—almost 1,000 quit the NHS in the last year alone.”

The email goes on to say that if dentists move to private provision, they do not actually earn any more. They are not just leaving NHS work because of the money but because they cannot look after their patients properly under the contract. It says that it is soul destroying, chasing these NHS units of dental activity. It is stressful and demoralising, so what do they do for the same money—not for more money? They go—this is what the British Dental Association says—to private practice, where they can spend more time with their patients, providing the level of care that their patients deserve.

We are not doing it right. To try to guard taxpayers’ money through efficiency, we are driving dentists out of the service. We are measuring the wrong things. I do not think that we are measuring enough, as we do not seem to have enough measurement, and where we are measuring, we are measuring the wrong things. It is not possible to get improvement unless we have the correct data. I have confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Minister, but I think we are all saying that this is urgent and please get on with it with proper reforms.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Need is more important than the actual overall numbers. Of course we want to see the numbers increase, but the focus should always be on the most vulnerable first. The NHS will ensure that that happens through the work that is being done especially by GPs to ensure an increase in the number of homebound visits and visits to care homes and the more vulnerable people in society.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Is not the lesson from this pandemic that early and proportionate action saves lives and ends up preserving more, not fewer, of our freedoms and that it is strongly supported by the silent majority of the British people?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly the purpose of the plans we have set out and the measures we will be debating in the House tomorrow, and also of the action we are taking on the booster programme to get more people protected so that they can enjoy their freedoms.

Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and all colleagues who have spoken, because party politics comes nowhere near today’s debate. We are all here with one purpose, which is to raise awareness about fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, which I will refer to as FOP.

I am not aware that any of my constituents have the condition. However, 584 of my constituents signed the petition, and I took that as a direct instruction from my employers—that is what they are—to be here today. I suspect that it had something to do with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, one of my constituency neighbours, being so active on the issue.

Like my colleagues, I am very proud to live in a country in which 111,000 people signed a petition relating to 80 people—children, in the main—that we are aware of, although I absolutely take the point that there might be quite a few more cases that have not been correctly diagnosed. That is humbling. It is worth pausing on that for a moment. We are a nation of 67 million people. One might think that something that has affected only 80 people does not really matter, but it matters hugely. All those individuals matter as individuals. That is what we are talking about today.

Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva is a variable and progressive illness. It can lock a person’s jaw. It can make eating, talking and dental care extremely difficult. It can lead to breathing difficulties. I have looked at the photographs that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead brought to the debate—for those who want to google them, they tell a powerful story.

I was interested to read about the palovarotene trial. I understand that there were 107 participants, which might not sound like a particularly large number. However, as we have said, FOP is a very rare disease, so it is significant. I understand that 62% of the people treated with palovarotene saw a reduction in new heterotopic ossification volume, which seems encouraging. I am not a clinician, so I do not know if that result is high enough to put the drug into widespread use. It certainly seems encouraging to me. I too pay tribute to the researchers at the University of Oxford. As we all know, they have done amazing work on vaccines for the pandemic this year. It is incredible that they are researching FOP as well.

I am pleased that our Government have a rare diseases framework, which was published this January. I read through it to prepare for this debate, and I want to say to the Minister and her Department that I think the framework’s aims are absolutely right. We have already spoken about the four priorities: helping patients get the right diagnosis faster; proper awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better co-ordination of care; and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. Those all seem absolutely right.

There are five underpinning themes that go along with the framework, the first of which is patient voice. The second is national and international collaboration; we have already heard about the research at the Universities of Oxford and Pennsylvania, and I am sure that researchers from both universities talk to each other and follow each other’s work. There is digital, data and technology, which is so important for that knowledge flow to take place and for people to be aware of the latest research. There is wider policy alignment in how we look after people with FOP. Finally, there is the research that we have been talking about.

I am pleased that the National Institute of Health Research has funded eight studies in this area. However, I have heard that FOP Friends is also funding a great proportion of this research. I have a suggestion for the Minister. I know she will not be able to respond to it now, but I ask her to take it back to the Department and discuss it with the Secretary of State and officials. I understand from the research that I have done for the debate that FOP research would help not only its victims, but people with military and blast injuries, joint replacements, severe burns, sporting injuries, osteoporosis, heart disease, atherosclerosis and chronic anaemia. If we took the smallest proportion—maybe even 0.1%—of the funding for all research into other conditions and earmarked it for FOP, we would provide a significant additional pot of money for FOP research without severely affecting the research into those other conditions. That would be a legitimate transfer of funding, given the benefits that FOP research would have for those other medical conditions. I mention that for the Minister’s consideration. I do not know whether that is feasible, but it could be a short-term way of getting more FOP research when budgets are tight.

The point about medical schools is really important. I have a lot of sympathy for medical students, who have an awful lot to learn in their five or six years at medical school. The seriousness of FOP and the amount of misdiagnosis—we are hearing about amputations and cancer treatment, which, tragically, make FOP worse—show the importance of medical students and doctors of the future knowing about FOP, so that we can get those affected on to the right treatment pathway as soon as possible.

Let us look at whether a little funding from research into related areas could go towards FOP, and ensure that FOP is on the radar of medical schools so that the UK has more than three expert clinicians in the field. We will need to significantly increase that number if we are to do the right thing by the people affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. I would be very happy to do that. Part of this will probably be the co-ordination of what funding, help and support there is for researchers, and then bringing the researchers together.

I reassure those who signed the petition that the NIHR does not ringfence funds for research. The fund is open to everyone, whether they have one of the most common diseases in the country or one of the rarest. The £1 billion research fund is available to all, and funding applications are available for any aspect of human health. When applications come forward, they are subject to peer review, so research colleagues look at it and judge it, with awards being made on the basis of clinical need—clearly, today we have heard of a clinical need that exists—the value to healthcare services, value for money and scientific quality, so there is no barrier to people applying for the funding.

Since 2010, the Medical Research Council has contributed funding to three projects underpinning relevance to FOP and underlying conditions as well—a total of £6.6 million. Outside those studies, UKRI and NIHR have also looked at supporting musculoskeletal health, which, although not directly FOP-specific, will have relevance to that condition.

[Andrew Selous]

I just want to take the Minister back to a point she made a moment ago about the trials for new drugs being limited to a very small number of people because FOP is a rare disease. I wonder what the solution to that is. Do we try to get people with FOP all the way around the world to participate in a trial? I am not sure how many people would be needed for a trial for it to be validated by the Minister’s Department. There were 107 in the trial that I mentioned, which I presume is too small. I wonder how we overcome that when in each individual country there are only a very small number of people to do the trials on.

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. Just to be clear, it is not the Government who would validate the trials; it would be the scientific community. If it is drug-related, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency would go on to change licences if it found a treatment that was applicable to FOP. In many conditions with such low numbers, often there are global studies, and the funding would not be restricted to a UK-based study. If it was part of a global study, I am sure that that would be acceptable. That is why it would be helpful to meet so that the support and mentorship available to researchers who are thinking of applying for funding could bottom out some of those issues.

I want to reassure colleagues who raised concerns that rare diseases are being pushed up the agenda. The rare diseases framework that was published in January is the first of its kind, and should reassure parents and children with FOP that this is an absolute priority. For too long, rare diseases, because numbers are low, have not had the significance, priority and attention that more common diseases with lots of campaigners and patients have had. The framework will push this to the top of the agenda.

The second reassurance I can give is that funding is available; there is £1 billion per year for clinical research across the board. Just because it is a rare disease does not exclude FOP from these funds. From a practical point of view, it does make research harder, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) highlighted. However, this does not mean that FOP researchers cannot apply for these funds; there are other criteria that are applied to low-volume scenarios.

Thirdly, I want to reassure Members that clinical research is happening. There are one or two studies that have taken off in this area; often that is the catalyst that needs to happen. I am hearing from colleagues across the House, who have constituents who are affected, that there is a desire to do more research. Very often, this desire is what is needed more than anything to find the researchers who want to do the research and have research questions—whether those are about diagnosis, treatment, or, ultimately, a cure. The funding is there to help support that, and there is practical help and support to bring those studies to fruition. Let me reassure colleagues that, as the Minister, I believe that research is the answer to many of the questions that have been asked today. I am very aware of how distressing this condition is, and the impact that it has on both the quantity and quality of a young person’s life. The Government are committed to ensuring that all rare diseases get better access to the resources that are there. With particular regard to FOP, I am sure that we can work with colleagues across the House to deliver answers to some of the questions they have asked today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

Women who have suffered are being helped and supported through the difficult choices that they are having to make. The Government have set up eight specialist mesh centres across the country to provide them with the specialist treatment that they need. Our priority is patient safety, preventing anything like this from happening again, and supporting women who have been affected. There is no evidence that a redress system would improve patient safety or improve the outcome for those women.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T8. As ear syringing is no longer being undertaken in local surgeries, and as self-care does not work for many people, will the Government make sure that microsuction is at least available in every primary care network area? Otherwise, we are leaving people to go deaf.

[Maria Caulfield]

Local commissioners are responsible for meeting the health needs of their local population and should continue to ensure appropriate access to ear wax services. However, should a CCG not routinely commission ear wax removal or the suction method that my hon. Friend refers to, a patient can request an individual funding request. I am happy to help my hon. Friend if that is not happening locally.

NHS England Funding: Announcement to Media

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Lady makes a good point. It is an interesting idea and I will certainly reflect on it.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thousands of new homes are being built to the east of Leighton Buzzard and to the north of Houghton Regis. Does my hon. Friend agree that those residents deserve a plan for a rational and budgeted increase in general practice capacity?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is coming back for a second bite of the cherry after Health and Social Care questions last week. I am well aware that there is significant housing development in his constituency and in many others. We need to ensure that the GP and broader health facilities follow that development, and do so in a way where the local health system can predict it and plan to deliver on that basis.

Health Incentives Scheme

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

I completely agree. A lot of the measures that have been put in place on the population side have resulted in reformulation by many manufacturers. That is so important. The soft drinks levy is a prime example. Just introducing that levy meant that so many manufacturers changed their formulation. Putting calories on menus and the traffic light system on the front of packaging once again encourages and pushes manufacturers quite hard to reformulate, and that will address the issues that my hon. Friend mentions.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

A few years ago the Food Foundation pointed out that healthier food is often cheaper in Europe than unhealthier food; perhaps we could look at that. The young people of Jamie Oliver’s foundation, Bite Back 2030, have identified that healthier options in schools are often more expensive and do not meet the proper standards, so will the Minister have a look at this issue?

[Maggie Throup]

Yes, that point has been raised with me, so I am aware of it. I am looking into it and will update my hon. Friend on the outcome of my investigations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful, I think, to the shadow Minister. We have a very clear definition of a new hospital, which I believe is shared by the public. It also leans on VAT notice 708 and its definition of what constitutes a new build or a refurbishment. To his specific question, we are committed to our manifesto commitment of 40 new hospitals by 2030—we build, the Opposition complain.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to remember my friend and colleague James Brokenshire, who shall be sorely missed, and I would like to dedicate this statement to my colleague Sir David Amess.

Sir David was a friend, and I had the privilege of knowing his kindness, his compassion and his selflessness at first hand. For those who did not, Sir David’s record tells them everything they need to know. His first concern was never his own rank or status, but the cause of the underdog, the vulnerable, the marginalised and the forgotten. As well as on fuel poverty and in standing up for animal welfare, Sir David left his mark on my own brief in campaigning to tackle obesity, chairing the Conservative Back-Bench health committee and launching the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis. That disease would never affect him personally, but it was raised by one of his constituents in his surgery—exactly like the one he was taking when he was killed. His legacy is the many lives that he touched, and I know that, like me, Members across the House will miss him terribly.

[Andrew Selous]

Of course I agree with every word of that very fine tribute to our two lost colleagues.

I represent an area of high housing growth so general practice provision needs to increase as the houses go up, but my clinical commissioning group tells me that NHS capital often appears at incredibly short notice and then disappears just as quickly. Can we try to get the provision of new general practices on a planned basis as the new houses go up?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this. Capital is allocated by two CCGs on a regional basis that is weighted by population, and, as he says, if that population changes, the weighting also changes. Additional funding can sometimes be allocated from section 106 or community infrastructure levy funding as well, but I am more than happy, if my hon. Friend would like, to meet him to discuss this further.

Covid-19 Update

Andrew Selous Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

No one wants to see deaths from any disease, including covid. As we have learned more about covid, everyone understands that it is not completely preventable, but our vaccines are making a difference in Wirral and across the country. There is no level of deaths that I would describe as acceptable, and the job of the Government is to keep that to an absolute minimum. However, there are not just covid deaths, and we must also be alive to deaths from cancer, heart disease and other things. As the hon. Lady will know, at the height of the restrictions many people suffered in other ways because they were not able to go to the NHS, and we must keep that at the front of our minds.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Covid has been tough for all health professionals, so will the Secretary of State wholeheartedly condemn the abuse that some GPs have been suffering recently? If vulnerable people are unable to get through on the telephone to their surgery, should it be the clinical commissioning group or the Department that steps in to try to sort that out?

[Sajid Javid]

I join my hon. Friend in condemning anyone who gives abuse to our fantastic GPs up and down the country. If someone cannot get through to their GP, they should try their clinical commissioning group. If for any reason that does not work, they should please come to the Department and consult Ministers.