National Health Service Funding

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I am not blaming hospitals. We are supporting hospitals to deal with the problem. The root cause of the problem, set out in the Francis report, was hospitals covering up bad problems. We said no to that and said that we were going to sort it out by having more nurses on our wards. That is why, in the four years that I have been Health Secretary, we have had 10,000 more nurses on our wards.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are finally starting to see through the usual Labour smokescreen that is high on rhetoric and low on alternative solutions, with very patchy and poor delivery when Labour is given the chance? My right hon. Friend’s approach to the health service—a quiet delivery of change and proper funding—is what the public are looking for.

[Mr Hunt]

It is noticeable that the two potential solutions we have heard have been from Opposition Back Benchers—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the former shadow Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton)—and not from the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The shadow Health Secretary is right to hold the Government to account for the funding of the NHS and the social care system, but it is a big mistake to distil all issues around the NHS into the simple issue of money. That subcontracts the responsibility for safe, high-quality care to politicians. If we are going to be the safest and the best quality system in the world, that has to be everyone’s job, everyone’s focus and everyone’s commitment—politicians, yes, but managers, doctors, nurses, porters, healthcare assistants and every single person working in NHS.

On the way forward, we first need to move to accountable care organisation models and the “Five Year Forward View”, including the STP process. The shadow Health Secretary called STPs “secret plans”, but in fact 28 of the 44 have been published and the rest will be published before Christmas. Many in the House, on both sides, objected to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 because they felt it did not do enough to support integrated care. Well, now we have a process that is bringing together the NHS and the social care system, acute trusts and primary care, at a local level. That is a big prize and we should support it, not try to make political capital out of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

There are eight cancer standards for waiting times and we are consistently meeting seven of them, as we did in September. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the 62-day waiting time has been challenging, and that has an impact on bowel cancer and ovarian cancer. It is also true, though, that one-year, five-year and 10-year survival rates for bowel and ovarian cancer are improving significantly. However, we do need to go further. That is why all 96 recommendations of the Cancer Taskforce have been accepted—we are investing up to £300 million to make that happen—and there is going to be a new test whereby all patients will be either diagnosed or given the all-clear within 28 days.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the register. Does my hon. Friend agree that research will defeat bowel and gastrointestinal tract cancer, and may I invite him to congratulate Bowel and Cancer Research on its fundraising and support for the cancer research community?

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is quite right: research, in the end, is the way we will beat cancer. This country is ahead of all countries in the world in terms of the number of trials going on, including the US. The voluntary sector, including the charity to which he refers, makes a big impact and I congratulate it.

NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

There are two things that we need to nail before we go any further. I listened to the Castro-esque monologue of the shadow Secretary of State, who prayed in aid the King’s Fund. She refused to take an intervention, but I was keen to ask her why she was not quoting the King’s Fund when it described privatisation in the NHS as a “myth”. Considering that the Conservative party has been in government for the longest time during the existence of the national health service, if we wanted to privatise it, frankly, we would have done it by now. All Conservative Members, like all Labour Members, are champions of the NHS, determinedly and doggedly trying to ensure that our constituents have the very best healthcare.

I am also slightly incredulous about the “wanting to have the penny and the bun” approach that Opposition Front Benchers have advocated. They want to see greater transparency in the process, as we all do, but as soon as there is the whiff of an idea coming through in consultation, up they get with their shrouds, running around saying, “This is closing, everybody’s going to die, rickets is coming back.” It is therefore perfectly understandable, though regrettable, that, rather like a snail, those who are trying to think about changes retract further into their shell.

One idea for the Minister—I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this will not be ruled out of order—is that if we want to improve sustainability in healthcare and the health service, we should be taking advantage in our soon-to-be-free Brexit world of being able to have across the health service, through our procurement process, entirely British-made and produced foods and milk. That would certainly add to sustainability. I say this on the National Farmers Union’s Back British Farming day, and as a DEFRA Parliamentary Private Secretary.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned, there are problems afoot in my constituency with regard to the Westminster Memorial hospital at Shaftesbury, a popular and useful community hospital. This is causing enormous concern among my constituents. I for one, once as a district councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, firmly support and champion the provision and continuance of our community hospitals. They provide a very useful spoke in the healthcare framework in providing the transition from the acute sector, where there is often pressure on beds, right the way through, one hopes, to patients returning to their homes. I ask the Department to think about this. Often the word “consultation” is used when what is meant is “information”, and scenarios are not put forward. The public are not stupid. They need to know what happens here if they choose this option, and what happens there if they choose that option. I hope that even at this late-ish stage we can have some clearer guidance from the Department about how to go about consulting the population to make sure that they buy into these proposed changes.

I am keeping an open mind about the plans for healthcare across North Dorset. We cannot just close the door to innovative thinking and the need to meet modern clinical demands. Patient care must come first, although that cannot be a defence in order to try to avoid change and challenge in service provision. I hope that anchored in the Dorset plans for healthcare is a very clear role and place for our community hospitals, particularly in Shaftesbury.

Brain Tumours

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The outcome of today’s debate is an incredibly simple one for my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department. It is to step up to the plate that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and others have already referenced. There is an unjustifiable disparity in attention and funds, which are not being provided for research into this type of cancer, whereas others attract it. I see a role for my hon. Friend’s Department. A number of right hon. and hon. colleagues have referenced the huge and valuable local fundraising that often goes on as a result of an individual tragedy. To avoid duplication and some of the problems that the hon. Lady referenced—the access to tissue and so on—could the Minister say in his summing up what role, if any, the Department might have in leading some form of co-ordination to try to get a national approach? However, that should not be seen as an abrogation, relying on the voluntary sector for the Department not to step up to the plate.

At the first or second surgery that I held after the election last year, a constituent called Sacha Langton-Gilks came to my surgery, and her story is replicated so many times. She had lost her son at the age of 16 to a brain tumour; he was diagnosed at the age of 11 in 2007. For five years he was treated very well with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but underwent 11 brain operations. The cancer reappeared in May 2012 and such was the physical toll on him and the family, they decided to go for the quiet option and not to prolong his life through any unnecessary and probably futile suffering. We must do something about all those tragic stories.

If I may, I want to talk briefly about the work and the campaign of HeadSmart. I cannot understand, and neither can my constituent who works on its education side, the Department’s reticence to have HeadSmart’s booklet inserted into the little red health book of every child. We must improve education and knowledge about this. Every death that we hear about is met by frustration and a sense of futility, which could so easily be evaporated if we were able to have a better and more pronounced understanding of the subject.

We have to do more about screening. It is unjustifiable that a child in the UK with a brain tumour takes on average three times longer to be diagnosed than somebody in the United States of America and even somebody in Poland. We are the world’s fifth largest economy. We know that there is pressure on the public purse, but, given the vulnerability of so many of these young people, now is the time for action. Will the Minister work with HeadSmart and others to get the information booklet into the little red health book and also to promote the information talks that HeadSmart provides within schools? It is crucial in personal, social, health and economic education, which is not technically required in academies. That is something we will have to think about as another aspect of policy, but now is the time for the Government to step up to the plate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as chair of the APPG, and I will highlight exactly that situation with the case of a constituent. Brain tumours are not as rare as we might think; they are the biggest cancer killer of children. That is why I argue that research and knowledge are critical.

I received an incredibly moving letter from my constituents, Charlotte Swithenbank and James Butler, the parents of Alfie, who is not yet two years old and has been fighting his cancer for more than a year. As in many cases, Alfie was not initially diagnosed. It was not until his seventh trip to the doctor in just two weeks that he was referred to Southampton general hospital. Within 36 hours of admission, he was diagnosed with a grade 3 infant ependymoma, and he has since had more than 24 hours of surgery. He has also had chemotherapy.

[Simon Hoare]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a correlation between a perception that brain cancers and brain tumours are somehow lower down the pecking order and the fact that GPs are less inclined to refer? They do not necessarily see them as part of the great initiatives of the Department.

[Caroline Nokes]

To be brutally honest, I do not know, but I agree with the chair of the APPG that it is critical that the medical community be incredibly aware of such cancers and make referrals as quickly as possible.

Alfie has been for proton beam therapy in the USA and has lived in hospital for more than five and a half months of his short life. He is scheduled to have his MRI today, which is why his parents are not here; I am sure that they will catch up with the debate later. That MRI will, we hope, establish whether Alfie has gone into remission. We want that news to be positive, but as his mother, Charlotte, says, even if Alfie is now in remission, given the type of tumour he has, there is a 50% chance that it will return within seven years. As a family, they will live in fear even if he has gone into remission.

Charlotte also says that early diagnosis is key. It was her persistence in going back to the GP time and again, and refusing to accept that it was just an ear infection, that meant that Alfie’s diagnosis, in comparison with many, was relatively quick. That got him referred to an excellent children’s unit, which has helped him to have a fighting chance.

Charlotte has sought to convey to me how urgent this issue is. Unlike other cancers, the incidence of brain tumours is rising and the improvements in outcome that we have seen in other cancers have not been matched in brain cancers. In Southampton, we are incredibly lucky to have the Cancer Research UK unit located adjacent to the general hospital. MPs are invited there every year to hear about the work it does and to see graphs that show that, for the majority of cancers, treatment rates are more successful and incidence is going down. However, for brain tumours, those are going in the other direction; the cures have not been as forthcoming as for other cancers.

We are all here today to convey the message to the Minister that we want more investment in research in this field, so that more parents do not have to go through what Charlotte and James are going through, and more children like Alfie have the best possible chance of a positive outcome.

Off-patent Drugs Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I endorse every word just spoken by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I support the Bill. Given the weight of opinion in the House expressed already, the expert testimony from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and the personally moving stories from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider what harm would take place were the Bill to be committed to a Committee, to try to iron out any creases that are believed to exist between those who sit on the Treasury Bench and the Bill’s promoter. I personally see no harm in it, and rather like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, I think that it should receive further debate in Committee.

I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on multiple sclerosis. Other Members have mentioned the Bill’s potential benefit for people who suffer from that cruel and pernicious disease. The Bill will give access to Simvastatin, which had been licensed for cardiovascular disease. It will help to augment support. It goes with the grain of the narrative of what the Government are trying to do on welfare reform, getting people back into work and reducing costs where possible of drugs and medical treatment. It ticks all the boxes: if people suffering from degenerative diseases can in some way be helped to lead a longer, more active—and more economically active—life, that would chime very well with the bean counters in the Treasury.

I am going to take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and be brief. Finally—I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire referenced this—a wider group of people is prescribing drugs. It is not just GPs and consultant surgeons; it is far wider than that. We live in an increasingly litigious age, and I have heard from colleagues in the House that there is a detectable reticence among those people to go off-licence for fear of being exposed to action in the courts. That is not in the interests of the patient, of the prescriber or of the NHS, so I support the Bill.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

Indeed. I had often wondered why my mum and dad named me Wendy, and that was obviously the reason.

Like many other people, I knew of the tremendous work of Great Ormond Street hospital. Each year, children from all over the United Kingdom, many of whom suffer from rare, complex and life-threatening conditions that cannot be treated elsewhere, go to that specialist hospital to benefit from its specialist care. Sadly, for many children Great Ormond Street is the last hope, and, although it is one of the world’s leading children’s research hospitals, for some of those conditions there are no known cures.

I was also aware of the very special link with J.M. Barrie, whose generous bequest to the hospital consisted of the royalties for commercial publications and public performances of his play “Peter Pan”. What I did not know, however, was that legislation was needed to enable the right to those royalties to be given to the new, independent Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity to which the current NHS charity is in the course of being converted. The right to the royalties is currently conferred on the special trustees for Great Ormond Street hospital who are appointed by the Secretary of State. Baroness Blackstone first raised the need to amend legislation to enable Great Ormond Street hospital to continue to benefit from the Barrie bequest during the passage, in the other place, of the Bill that became the Deregulation Act 2015, and the Government agreed to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity. My Bill will do that by amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

I have to say that my warm and comforting thoughts of Great Ormond Street vanished temporarily when I read more of the briefing that had been prepared for the Bill, and discovered a proposal to remove powers from the Secretary of State for Health. I was a little concerned. Could I have been handed a Trojan rocking horse? Well, I can assure Members that if I had been, I would not be presenting the Bill today, because it also paves the way for sensible housekeeping on the part of NHS charities, the Secretary of State and his Department. As a new, eager and enthusiastic Member of Parliament, and one who wishes to see less bureaucracy, less duplication and less Government interference, I think it fair to say that the opportunity to remove some of the Secretary of State’s powers had a certain attraction.

Before I deal with the details of the Bill, let me assure you, Mr Speaker—and I hope you will not be too disappointed—that this Wendy will not be flying through the sky, or indeed the Chamber, on an adventure with a mischievous little boy called Peter Pan and a fairy named Tinker Bell, although I shall remain firmly on my guard for Captain Hook and ticking crocodiles.

Let me start with the background to the Bill, which, although it might seem technical in parts, is necessary and important. NHS charities are regulated under charity law but are also linked to NHS bodies and bound by NHS legislation. They are charitable trusts established under NHS legislation and have as their trustee an NHS body such as a foundation trust or trustees appointed by the Secretary of State for an NHS body. NHS charities are distinct from independent charities, which are established solely under charity law. As we would expect, funds donated to the NHS must be held separately from Exchequer funding provided by the taxpayer. These charities exist to support the beneficiaries and there is a special relationship between the charities and the trusts with which they are associated.

The first part of the Bill makes provision to remove the Secretary of State for Health’s powers to appoint trustees for NHS bodies in England and to appoint special trustees in England for specific hospitals. It also amends primary legislation in this regard. It fulfils a Government commitment made in 2014 following a 2012 Department of Health review and consultation on the governance of NHS charities. The outcome of the consultation was that NHS charities should be allowed to convert to independence should they so choose and the Secretary of State for Health’s powers to appoint trustees to NHS bodies under the National Health Service Act 2006 should be removed at the earliest legislative opportunity.

You may well ask why, Mr Speaker, and I can understand that question, but please let me try to explain. A number of the larger NHS charities called for reform because they were concerned that the NHS legislative framework limited their freedom to grow and develop their charitable activity to best support their beneficiaries and to demonstrate to potential donors visible independence from Government.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I rise not as a ticking crocodile but to ask my hon. Friend to assure the House that notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill, which I support fully, the NHS and the public purse will continue to have a pair of eyes and ears around the trustee table as there will be the ability to nominate a trustee to sit on this new independent body to ensure that trustees do not, in a flight of fancy, suddenly go off to Cap Ferrat for the weekend and put everything on number six.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. The important point is that whereas the NHS charity can benefit from this new independent model, there will always be accountability. This is not public money but money that comes from benefactors and donors, so it is right and proper that the trust instilled in the process of giving is maintained at all times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

That is the beauty of being in the Chamber on a Friday, Mr Speaker.

[Simon Hoare]

Has my hon. Friend noticed the relief among Opposition Members that there is no one of Scottish heritage in the Chamber?

[Wendy Morton]

I have not, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I have introduced the Bill to deal with the importance of legacy. This very special gift to Great Ormond Street hospital of the rights to “Peter Pan” royalties is currently conferred on the special trustees appointed by the Secretary of State to the hospital. Those trustees, as I have mentioned, wished to take advantage of the Government policy allowing NHS charities to move to independent status, and have partly completed their conversion to the charitable company known as Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity, which will enable them to take advantage of the benefits of independence. However, the conversion will be fully completed only if the rights to the royalties to “Peter Pan” are conferred on the charity, in the special trustees, ensuring that the royalties continue to be used for the benefit of Great Ormond Street hospital.

As I explained at the beginning of my speech, my private Member’s Bill was introduced following a Department of Health review and consultation on the governance of NHS Charities. The decision to move to independent status or revert to the corporate trustee model is entirely for each charity to make. All of the 16 charities to which I have referred have either made the decision or have indicated that they will do so, which shows the support for the measure. The move to independence will provide greater freedom to attract additional funding, reduce bureaucracy by leaving the charities under the sole authority of the Charity Commission, and give greater liability protection for trustees.

It is also worth recognising that NHS charities simply would not be able to achieve as much as they do without the massive contribution of trustees. This week, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, is trustees week, so it is only right and proper that we recognise and pay tribute to the valuable contribution that trustees make up and down the country.

I shall now sum up my private Member’s Bill. Fundamentally, the NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill seeks to support the work of NHS charities. First, and very specifically, it makes provision to confer the rights to the “Peter Pan” royalties on the new Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. That will enable it to take full advantage of the move to independent status, providing greater freedom to attract additional funding and reduce bureaucracy, by leaving it under the sole authority of the Charity Commission.

By repealing the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to appoint trustees to NHS bodies in England and to appoint special trustees in England, the Bill draws to a conclusion the transition process for NHS charities, which are expected to move either to an independent model or to a corporate model. It creates certainty and clarity within the existing complex bureaucratic structure. It provides greater freedoms to attract additional funding and gives trustees much greater protection from liability.

During the summer and in recent weeks I have spoken to many people about my Bill and I am very reassured by the support it has received, including from Great Ormond Street hospital and other NHS charities. I feel confident that Members in all parts of the House recognise that this Bill is worthy of a Second Reading.

I have had the opportunity to indulge in a journey back to my childhood. While some Members here today may have been watching the latest Bond movie, I have been catching up with Disney’s Peter Pan and my reading on the train has been J.M. Barrie. On this occasion no one at home has been able to complain.

“Peter Pan” is a well-loved fairy tale, but this Bill is for real. It is a piece of legislation which I trust I have explained to Members, and which is wanted by NHS charities and is necessary. This Bill is worthy of a safe passage. I do not want it to be the Never Bird, to fly out of the window, turn second star to the right and straight on to morning, ending up in Never Land, where the lost boys play and crocodiles tick. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I do not know, but I assume that J.M. Barrie picked that hospital because it was the first in the country dedicated only to children. If I can find out more, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him.

Since 1929 the hospital has pioneered the medical treatment of children and there has been breakthrough after breakthrough, underpinned by a very deep commitment to professionalism among all the staff at every level in the hospital and those who run the hospital. Only yesterday came the news that a baby girl with incurable leukaemia was saved by Great Ormond Street hospital, with surgeons performing what was described as a miracle operation, the first of its kind in the world. She is just the latest in a long line of children who literally owe their lives to Great Ormond Street hospital and its staff.

The hospital has lost none of its ambition. In 2002 it commenced a redevelopment programme to expand capacity, deliver an ever-improving trip service and reduce unnecessary in-patient admissions. I think that everybody in the House was very proud when the hospital featured in the opening ceremony of the London Olympics in 2012 as a symbol of everything that we in this country are proud of.

[Simon Hoare]

Due to your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Members can now Google while listening to a debate. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), the Barries were childless, but in 1929 J. M. Barrie was approached to sit on a committee to help buy some land so that the hospital could be built. Those are his links to the hospital.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which saves me from having to look it up later and write to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall).

The second part of the Bill is needed to ensure that Great Ormond Street hospital can continue to benefit from the copyright to “Peter Pan” and to continue the close relationship between the hospital for children and the boy who never grew up. I urge Members to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Much has been said about the importance of a work of literature with the status of the novel “Peter Pan”. We are, of course, entering the panto season. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) told us earlier about the number of performances of “Peter Pan” that would be taking place around the country, and I note that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are wearing the ruby slippers of Dorothy from “The Wizard of Oz”. The Epping Forest Empire Theatre will doubtless present a sterling performance at some point during the Christmas season.

I support the Bill, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on introducing it. Underpinning its proposals is, of course, the Government’s commitment to localism and devolution. Many of us who have read the Bill will probably have been rather surprised that the opportunity to appoint trustees is a reserved power of the Secretary of State for Health, because one would automatically assume that trustees who are involved in their local hospitals would be drawn from the local community, and appointed by people with local knowledge and expertise. In that respect, the Bill is a very important measure.

The safeguard that I sought to draw out from my hon. Friend in an earlier intervention is crucial. In no way does this newfound independence of appointment allow trusts to move away from their core and original purpose. They cannot all look at the Racing Post and decide that Lucky Lad in the 3.10 on Saturday is the favourite, and the fact that the horse has only three legs and the jockey has a withered arm is neither here nor there—they are going to put all the trust funds on Lucky Lad. That cannot happen, which I think is a very important safeguard.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

At the very mention of Lucky Lad, I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent explanation of what the Bill would do. Ordinary charities are not, of course, allowed to put money on Lucky Lad in the 3.10 at Uttoxeter, or wherever it may be. I hope that that is not a widespread problem, but if it is, my hon. Friend should bring it to the attention of the Charity Commission.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the role of trustees. As a trustee of a charity myself, I shall ensure that my copies of the Racing Post— well thumbed as they are—are not brought into any more trustee meetings. It is also important to point out that the Charity Commission will continue to have oversight. I think that that addresses the rather waspish comment made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

With enormous, enormous pleasure, to waspishness I will give way.

[Paul Flynn]

There are 5,000 leading charities in Britain, and there is great concern about the activities of some of them. The majority do a great deal of good, but we know of the abuses carried out by “chuggers”—which constitute robbery as far as donors are concerned—and the use of call centres to plague elderly, vulnerable people. There is a need not for wholesale deregulation, but for new regulations to control those charities.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman has invited me to stray from the immediate purport of the Bill. Let me avail myself briefly of that invitation, and agree with him wholeheartedly. The people who wander up and down our streets waylaying busy shoppers, business men and women and commuters trying to elicit bank details and donations, and those who worry and harass people in their homes with telephone calls seeking charitable donations, are a curse and a menace. I believe that the authorities and Her Majesty’s Government are alert to that, and I rather hope that during the course of this Parliament we shall see some redress in respect of an issue that blights the lives of many of our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills may wish to clarify the position, but I am not aware that Great Ormond Street raises funds in that way, although I do not think that the issue is crucial to the Bill.

[Wendy Morton]

The Bill is purely about 16 NHS charities and their move to independence, and about Great Ormond Street. I am straying a little here, but I think that there may be issues relating to other charities that come to light occasionally. My Bill, however, is purely about the NHS charities, which are a very specific and, in my view, a very special group.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have allowed a little laxity this morning so that Members could explore issues relating to charities, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). However, the hon. Lady is right to point out that the Bill is narrow. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman. in his usual erudite manner, will now confine his remarks to the Bill, as he has done perfectly so far.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I am drawing my remarks to a close.

I also think that the Bill is helpful in terms of general governance. As has been noted, Great Ormond Street currently operates two charities side by side. That requires two reports to the Charity Commission, two sets of audited accounts, and a duplication of arrangements involving busy people who could, quite properly, be engaging in other activities to raise funds.

[Maggie Throup]

It is not just about the duplication of effort but about the fact that money that has been spent on creating the accounts and on the bureaucracy could have been spent on the work that the charities carry out.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is an energetic champion of deregulation and trying to cut away as much red tape as possible. I am sure that the electorate of Erewash are delighted by that. I agree with her entirely that this could free up not just time but valuable funds for a more health-related purpose.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has delivered the Bill with great clarity. In this day and age, it is interesting and unusual when any Secretary of State is prepared to see power taken away from them. The Bill champions the cause of localism and local involvement, which is a good thing. Although the Bill cannot prove this of itself, there might well be opportunities to raise additional funds from trusts if potential donors understand that the trust is separate from, and not appointed by, Whitehall and Westminster, and that they can donate with confidence and comfort because the Charity Commission’s rules of governance for charitable trusts are writ large within the Bill as safeguards to ensure that any moneys raised are used for their proper purpose. I support the Bill entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this Bill and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who fills a seat that was taken by a most distinguished predecessor. Richard Shepherd was a wonderful Member of Parliament and a great parliamentarian. He believed so much in this institution, and we should all rejoice at the fact that my hon. Friend now takes his place and is showing herself to be a serious parliamentarian, committed to the processes of this House.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, were not here last week when a new tradition began, which I would like to continue. It is that of congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means on the brilliant way in which he carries out the ballot so that my hon. Friend should have come high enough up it for her Bill to come fourth. He carried out this draw with such characteristic efficiency and in such a workmanlike fashion that her Bill came out low enough down to be high enough up for it to be debated today. That is a very considerable achievement.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Simon Hoare]

I asked my hon. Friend to give way just to give the House pause to recalibrate itself as it gets used to the idea of him welcoming anything that is new.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; occasionally there are innovations that are welcome, and this is one of them. For those who do not know, I should add that in the draw No. 1 used to be done first but now No. 20 is the Bill done first. It is like a game show: it brings more tension and atmosphere into the proceedings. That is how it has worked and how the Bills have come out in the way they have.

This is a superb Bill. It is the reason why private Members’ Bills exist, because it is deregulating. It is such a wonderfully Tory Bill. It is a properly Conservative Bill, because it takes—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, but I could not quite hear what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was saying from a sedentary position. I am happy to give way if he wishes to intervene.

Why is it such a wonderfully Conservative Bill? It is because of its fundamental deregulatory nature. We have built up a state where more and more powers have been gathered to the centre, where Whitehall has the rule over all it purveys. It tells people what they must do. When it says jump, people have to say, “How high?” It was of course a Labour Cabinet Minister who said, “The fact of the matter is the man in Whitehall really does know best.” It has to be said that that was in 1947, but the fundamental principle underpinning what the socialists believe remains the same: that control should be centralised; that if instructions and diktats come from on high, the government of the country will be better run; and that individuals are not the people who can best take charge of this.

We, as Conservatives, reject that fundamentally, and it is this philosophy that underpins the Bill. We take the view that the millions of random decisions taken by individuals over how they should lead their lives means better decision making, better allocation of resources and a more contented and unified society overall. By taking power away from the Secretary of State—removing appointments from his control—the Bill allows every charity across the country that is involved in supporting the health service to set out what is appropriate for its community, for its region, for its county and for its area. In Somerset, we may well want different approaches from that which is suitable for the centre of London. Different approaches will be wanted in Dorset, Devon, Sussex and Surrey. Even in Gloucestershire they may have some thought as to how they wish to approach these things. [Interruption.] And in Hampshire, that fine county. Hampshire, one of the great counties, which was on the right side when Alfred beat Guthrum, is always to be admired in these contexts. These charities will decide what is appropriate and suitable for them, how they appoint and whom they have.

One of my colleagues speaking earlier, I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was talking about the risk that people would be appointed for nefarious political purposes, and of course that is what has always happened. In the 18th century, it was called jobbery. I always thought that was a good word because it so nicely encapsulates what happens as we get that corruption of baubles. The Government are the owner and disperser of baubles, and there is a corruption built in, as they give those baubles, initially, not to their friends specifically, but merely to those who are not opposed to them. In the case of somebody who is opposed, it would be “going too far” to allow an appointment to be made by the Secretary of State. It really “would not do” to appoint somebody on the other wing of politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was an urgent question on the matter, and I do not think that there is any more for me to say on it.

Jobbery is a real problem. It comes more when a party is in office for a very long time. The system gets accustomed to appointing people who belong to routine consensus political views, and they are the ones who get the baubles.

Many of these charitable baubles are unpaid, but they come with a great deal of status in their communities, so there is a benefit to the person receiving them. It is right that such decisions should be more independent of the Government. It is right not just because of the ability to get away from jobbery, but because many people—those on the Treasury Bench will be shocked to hear this—do not trust the Government.

[Simon Hoare]

Shame!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I know. The Minister in his seat is looking appalled at that suggestion, but it is true. Many people think that if there is any possibility of the Government getting their grubby paws on a little bit of money, those grubby paws will dart out and the money will be raked in. There is of course a history of Government doing that. For example, hypothecated taxes have been introduced for particular purposes. When the Government run a bit short of money, or find that too much is being paid in the hypothecated taxes, they dehypothecate them—they put them to another purpose. I am thinking of national insurance, which was introduced as an insurance scheme, and of the road fund licence, which was introduced to build our roads. Both of those were syphoned off by Governments, arguably for very good reasons, which I will not go into because they are too broad for this Bill. I merely wish to illustrate the point that charities need to be robust in spending the money on what it has been given for, and not on any other thing, and if they cannot spend it on that which it has been given for, they should give it back to the people who gave it in the first place. The reason that that is important is partly that we believe in the rights of property—this is a Tory Bill. If property belongs to a specific designated purpose then that is what it is there for; it is not there to be used for any random purpose that someone thinks is a good idea at some later stage. There are many good purposes, and there are many charities that some people think do less good things than the good purpose that they have thought up, so there is always pressure to reallocate resources in the way that a Government, or some authority, think is preferable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend really is a truly radical parliamentarian in the train of her predecessor, because she has been involved in a consultation that has actually listened to what people have said. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I cannot believe that the Government ever do anything of that kind. They always wait for the answer that they hoped for in the beginning. What a brilliant thing she has done, and I entirely agree with the point she makes, but it makes so much sense to reinforce the independence of charities and to ring-fence the money, because there are inevitable, inexorable pressures on NHS budgets. If there is a couple of million pounds sitting around at the end of the year and a waiting list and the hospital could do with a bit of cash, it could easily try to claw in the money. That is why ring-fencing and independence are so important to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that charities will do what they have been set up to do. That reassures people and will make them more generous.

I wish to raise one point with the Minister, however, that comes from a constituency experience. It relates to the independent charities using the trademark of the national health service. A constituent of mine runs a charity that has put defibrillators across the country, and he has done so in co-ordination with the NHS. The numbers needed to open the boxes are given out when people dial 999. The charity is supported by ambulance trusts, which have said that they want their logo put on the boxes. Now, some random bureaucratic body in the NHS protects its logo, and it has decided in its wisdom that the charity must spend some money removing all the NHS logos from a system backed by the NHS, operated with the NHS, but not formally part of the NHS. That seems to me the worst type of bureaucratic folderol imaginable. It is a stubborn refusal to allow something sensible to happen for no good reason other than that a rule must be rigorously enforced. The whole purpose of the boxes is to support the NHS, to make its job easier, and no one can open the box without having got in touch with the emergency services in the first place, and, as I say, the ambulance trusts want this to happen.

It concerns me that, if the charities are made formally independent, that same bureaucracy will be jumping up and down in a few weeks’ time and saying, “Well, you’re now an independent charity, so you can’t use the NHS logo because it will damage the NHS brand.” That is a perfectly ridiculous point of view to take. I could not have less sympathy for how that body is approaching the issue, rather than using the good common sense that is another Tory value and principle and allowing something that benefits everyone to happen. I hope that that will not be a problem emerging from the Bill. Perhaps an amendment can be inserted in Committee to say specifically that charities linked with the NHS are entitled to use NHS logos and trademarks. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on what I am saying about the charity in my constituency that is doing something really wonderful—it is saving hundreds of lives—but some petty bureaucrat is getting in the way. So I hope that an additional benefit will come from the Bill.

I have been saving up talking about J.M. Barrie and “Peter Pan” because I remember when the Bill—introduced by the late Lord Callaghan, a former Prime Minister—was passed in 1988 to extend the copyright on “Peter Pan” indefinitely, and I do so because I remember the late Lord Charteris starting a speech by pointing out that Captain Hook was an old Etonian. Lord Charteris was then the provost of Eton, and that was therefore immediately relevant and of interest to him, but it is also of interest to me because it has to be said that there are all sorts of old Etonians. There are the great and the good: the greatest figures in the land—our Prime Minister is an old Etonian, and he is one of the good lot—but we have at the other end the rogues’ gallery of old Etonians, where Captain Hook stands proud, along with people like Lord Lucan. Hon. Members know exactly what I mean. Captain Hook is there in that role to frighten the children, to keep them well behaved, just as Bonaparte was used in earlier times to frighten badly behaved children. I am rather proud of the fact that an old Etonian fills that role. It rebalances the scales so that we do not mislead people into thinking that all old Etonians are wonderful fellows. One or two of them are in the rogues’ gallery, but there is a balance: only in the past week, the new James Bond film has come out, and James Bond is, of course, another old Etonian. We have some good historical characters, as well as some villains, who are there to remind people that Eton is a serious school that produces people who will take all sorts of different sides in various cases.

What is happening with “Peter Pan” and Great Ormond Street hospital is a great combination of good sense and generosity. J.M. Barrie’s generosity was remarkable. He left his royalties to various people. He left them to Great Ormond Street hospital. He left some to Westminster school, and, where I must declare an interest, he left some to the Garrick club. Since the “Winnie-the-Pooh” money came into the Garrick club, the wine list has improved very considerably. So we all have a lot to be grateful to J.M. Barrie for, either directly or indirectly.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to my fellow Garrick member.

[Simon Hoare]

I hate to contradict my proposer to the club, but I think that A.A. Milne gave his royalties to the Garrick, not J.M. Barrie.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was confusing my authors of children’s literature. I got “Winnie-the-Pooh” right; I was just attributing it to the wrong man. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. So I do not have an interest to declare. I must de-declare my interest in relation to the topic on which I was talking.

Leaving such a legacy is a wonderfully generous thing to do, along with the flexibility in allowing the copyright law to be adapted so that one play can provide resources for a hospital, where the two come together. We all know the story very well. The childhood story of Peter Pan, ever-youthful—Madam Deputy Speaker, as I look at you, I see the ever-youthful Deputy Speaker—is a great one to combine with a children’s hospital, which is there to care for children at their weakest time, not just those from London, but those from across the country, as we have heard.

Junior Doctors’ Contracts

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right. His concern is shared by the President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, along with 14 other leaders of medical royal colleges and faculties, who point out that as currently proposed, the new contract would

“act as a disincentive to recruitment in posts that involve substantial evening and weekend shifts, as well as diminishing the morale of those doctors already working in challenging conditions.”

It cannot possibly be right.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I join her in the praise that she issued in her opening remarks. What advice might she give the BMA, were she asked for it? Is it better for the BMA to get back around the table, so that the very important points that she is raising can be sorted out, or go straight to a ballot? Is it not better to talk first, then, if the BMA does not like it, by all means ballot? It is certainly doing it in the wrong way.

[Heidi Alexander]

The problem is that junior doctors are not convinced that the Secretary of State is negotiating in good faith.

When one talks to junior doctors about the proposed new contract, one thing is striking: pay is less important to them than patient safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I will make some progress. Some people say that this is a battle between the interests of patients and those of doctors, but that is profoundly wrong. Doctors who are happy and supported in their jobs provide better care to patients, and the link between a motivated workforce and high-quality care is proven in many studies, as well as in hospitals such as that in Northumbria, where staff have become the greatest advocates for seven-day services since their introduction. Our proposed new system is intended to provide better support to doctors who work weekends, and make seven-day diagnostics more widely available across the NHS.

[Simon Hoare]

Given the clarity with which my right hon. Friend has addressed the principal concerns of junior doctors, does he expect the BMA’s junior doctors Committee to change its stance, come to the Department and restart negotiations, or will it continue to stall?

[Mr Hunt]

If the BMA is serious about wanting to do the right thing for doctors and patients, there is no reason for it not to negotiate with the Government to get the right solution. This is a test of how serious it is—my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

NHS: Financial Performance

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady asks about nurse training places, and this year the number of places is consistent with the number in 2010. The key point is not just the number of nurses in training, which is determined by NHS providers, but the number of nurses in hospitals serving patients and the public. The number of nurses is currently at a record high thanks to this Government’s actions.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may have missed the speech to the Labour party conference by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). He may therefore be interested to know that she said that the Labour party would not be enforcing any efficiency savings in the NHS, including the £22 billion that the NHS itself has identified. Will he confirm that efficiency savings must be a concomitant part of NHS funding?

[Ben Gummer]

I saw the comments by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), and the thing that confused me most is that she imagines that efficiency savings are a creation of this Government. They are not; they are the product of the “Five Year Forward View” that identifies the need to create £22 billion of efficiency savings over the next five years. Had she read the “Five Year Forward View” she would be aware that those efficiency savings are essential if we are to get the patient care and quality that Simon Stevens identified as a necessity for the service.