Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries]

No, I am going to close. I thought long and hard about tabling this amendment. Like so many issues concerning abortion, it is a highly emotive area. There are those who believe that the right to an abortion is so sacred that, no matter what, it should never be touched, debated or reformed. There is not a single MP in this House who has not been asked by a constituent about their beliefs on this issue. I am sure that many prefer, understandably, to fudge a response, particularly when the reaction to discussing abortion can be so aggressive, as I have found to my cost.

The amendment is about one thing and one thing only: providing women with more choice. It would allow women who are at their most vulnerable greater access to support. It must be wrong that the abortion provider that is paid £60 million to carry out terminations also provides the counselling when a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?

I will move on to the tactics that have been used in this House to thwart the amendment. I wish to be very clear and will take no more interventions. I went to see the Prime Minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact, it was at the Prime Minister’s insistence that I inserted the word “independent”. I have attended a meeting at the Department of Health at which it was decided what process would be implemented to make this a reality.

Last weekend, the former MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, Evan Harris, who has spent most of the day in the office of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—he is still here, tabling his amendments—turned up on the airwaves expounding the theory that there is no evidence of a problem, that the amendment is unnecessary as nothing needs to be fixed, that the status quo should remain and that the abortion industry should be allowed to continue under the veil of secrecy that it has.

I received a message informing me that the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon had approached the Deputy Prime Minister’s office and exerted pressure. In fact, he tweeted exactly that, saying that he had applied pressure on the Deputy Prime Minister, who had now forced the Prime Minister to make a climbdown. Basically, a Liberal Democrat—in fact, a former MP who lost his seat in this place—is blackmailing our Prime Minister and our Government. Our Prime Minister is being put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health Bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP, who has focused on this amendment.

The interesting thing is that ComRes polling shows that 78% of the public support the amendment.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but there is so much noise in the House that it is sometimes difficult to know whether somebody is seeking to intervene or standing for another purpose. Point of order, Mr Martin Horwood.

[Martin Horwood]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse a former hon. Member of blackmail in the course of their speech? That is an accusation of a criminal offence.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My understanding at present is that there has been no breach of order. However, I would say to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and to the House that temperate language, moderation and good humour are the essential features referred to in “Erskine May”, and it is best if they inform our debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

I shall cut to the chase because other Members want to speak and many colleagues have spoken powerfully about the benefits of the NHS. I have two very specific questions regarding concerns that people in the south-west have raised with me. These issues relate to part 1 of the Bill, the role of the director of public health, and the making of complaints, as covered by new clause 1. I want to link these issues to the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the basis on which actions are taken—indeed, the information that is used—is in the hands of and is accessible to people in the new set-ups who need that information and can use it.

The concerns that have been raised with me relate to the movement of national health service public health staff into local authority control and the fact that the Office for National Statistics currently has a duty to release certain data only to directors of public health, who are part of the NHS. I gather that the ONS has had concerns about this and I am interested to know whether it has waived the requirement for directors of public health to sign a confidentiality and proper use statement every year, or whether it has agreed to the passing of this role into local authorities. I cannot find that in the Bill, although I must admit that I am coming to this a little late—my apologies to colleagues about that—and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell me whether that issue has been resolved.

Secondly, the Minister will know that we carry out nuclear decommissioning in Plymouth. Is he confident that public health can be fully protected in the way that it has been in the past? I note clause 54 on radiation, but will the Minister look at how H1N1 was dealt with? The first confirmed case of swine flu was in Paignton and the response was carried out by PCT public health staff in Plymouth and Torbay. They worked together rapidly to administer antiviral drugs to nearly 500 pupils and they provided reassurance and support to extremely anxious children and parents. That response was set up within 45 minutes of the initial phone call, despite the fact that it had not been done before, and it was done without any practical help from the Health Protection Agency, which was swamped with other work. The PCT public health staff just got on with it and they did a fantastic job—no other child was infected. Indeed, they compiled a guide on how to do it all, which was passed on and was commended by the Prime Minister. There is a view that such a response will not be possible in a few years’ time, so complaints from the public—this takes us back to new clause 1—will inevitably follow. Clearly, if we get health protection wrong, we can kill people.

In order to avoid complaints on new clause 1, will the Minister say what power the director of public health, sitting within the local authority, will have to galvanise staff across organisations? Will they be the appropriate authority, or will responsibility sit elsewhere? Will they have to go through another senior officer? Who is ultimately responsible if they get it badly wrong—the local authority, the director of public health or the Secretary of State? Or is it another instance when the Government are saying, “Not me, guv” and passing the buck to the local council and the political leadership of that council? If there was a viral outbreak in various parts of the country, widely spread, would the individual local authorities be held responsible for dealing with it, coming up with solutions and coping with the outcomes, or is this a case in which the Secretary of State actually has a clear duty to take the lead?

[Martin Horwood]

I am extremely grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have a tough job this afternoon. I have to declare an interest. I rarely speak in the House on NHS organisation, particularly public health, because my wife is employed as a director of public health. Obviously, the Bill and the public health section of clause 27 will affect her significantly, and by extension those of us in her family, but I make it clear to the House that although my knowledge of her role and profession has informed amendments 1255 to 1260, which stand in my name, she had no knowledge of them or their contents before I tabled them. However, I am grateful to the Faculty of Public Health and others who have given me advice.

Public health is pretty poorly understood, not least in this Chamber at times. There is a constant tendency to confuse it with the traditional, established local authority function of environmental health, and although I have great respect for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) in many respects, I think the risk of her new clause 23 is that it extends that confusion between environmental health and public health. There are many key functions to public health, not just the vital five-a-day style health promotion and health improvement work, but a critical role in health protection, including the management of outbreaks of communicable diseases—serious diseases such as meningitis and influenza—and a key role in influencing, at the moment, NHS commissioning at local level, using population-wide data and medical analysis. That, at the moment, happens very simply and straightforwardly within the primary care trust. Under the Bill at the moment, there is no role for the director of public health within the new clinical commissioning groups, and they have to exercise that kind of influence at several removes. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck).

It was suggested to me at one stage by some civil servants working on the Bill that in order to make up for the gap left by the director of public health in the new clinical commissioning groups—then called consortia—they might actually want to employ someone with public health expertise to make up for the reorganisation. That does not seem to me a very good use of public money.

Some of the things that Ministers have announced are to be welcomed. I will have to skip over them briefly, but principal among them is the very good decision to make Public Health England a separate Executive agency and not part of the Department of Health. That was a key request of the faculty, and I think it is very important that it retain that status and objectivity.

I pay tribute to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), for taking a great deal of time and care over the concerns that I had in this whole area, but questions remain to be addressed and my six amendments are an attempt to address three main areas.

The first area is, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View pointed out, that under this scheme directors of public health will be removed from the NHS, as will their staff. One of my amendments suggests, therefore, that they should continue to be employed by Public Health England and retain that integration within a wider public health profession. At the moment directors of public health sit within primary care trusts and it is reasonably straightforward, but within the spaghetti-like structures created by the Bill, public health responsibilities and leadership are now to be split among Public Health England, the Secretary of State, the local authorities, the national commissioning board, the health and wellbeing boards and clinical commissioning groups. The threat is not just confusion and the unclear fragmentation of public health functions, but the fragmentation of the profession itself and of the career paths, whereby people might move from one bit to another and have to leave and rejoin the NHS, and so on. That is one of the issues addressed.

The second issue is that people should be suitably qualified. The responsibility for their professional qualification and professional development should lie in the hands of Public Health England, not local authority managers, who might have no medical or professional public health training. It is an important function, so they should be senior officers. Several members of the Health Committee, including its Chair, made the important point that they should report directly to the chief executive. It has been suggested in some parts of the country that the post of director of public health could be combined with or report to other directorates in the principal local authority—for instance, the director of housing.

I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on the issues, and he replied:

“given the importance of these new local authority public health functions, the leadership position of the DPH in the local community and the critical health protection functions to be carried out by the DPH on behalf of the local authority, we would expect the DPH to be of chief officer status”.

I do not think that an expectation is strong enough. I have great regard for many directors of housing, but if my child had meningitis, I would not want the director of housing to be on the other end of the phone line at a critical moment.

As it is still possible for the Government to address these issues through the consultation exercise on public health that is being planned, I will not press my amendments to a vote today, but I was rather disappointed with the Minister’s response to them. Should any noble Friends be listening from the Gallery, I hope they might take up the theme of public health in another place. Public health is poorly understood and has not grabbed the headlines in the way that the 38 Degrees campaign has, but over recent years it has been quietly becoming a more and more successful, professional and increasingly medically qualified discipline in the NHS. It saves lives, and we should protect it.

[Paul Burstow]

We have had a full and wide-ranging debate on the many issues covered by this group of amendments. I want to try to pick up a few of the key questions that have been asked. The Bill will increase the Secretary of State’s accountability for a comprehensive health service.