| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No 31(2)),
That this House recognises the effects the global financial instability is having across the world and on the UK economy; notes that, as a result of Government action on financial stability, no individual depositor in a UK financial institution has lost savings; notes that the cut in value added tax, increased child benefit and £60 payments to all pensioners are helping families and businesses across the UK; further notes that 60 per cent. of pensioners pay no tax at all; believes savings are important in providing people with independence and security throughout their lives; welcomes cross-party support for the Saving Gateway Accounts Bill to help those of working age on low income; believes that the Saving Gateway will build on the successful pilots since 2002 to create savings accounts with the Government matching each pound saved with a contribution; notes that around eight million people on benefits and tax credits will be eligible for this incentive to save; further recognises the successful role that Individual Savings Accounts have played over the last decade with over 18 million people, including one in five people from low-income groups, choosing this method to save tax-free; welcomes the fact that four million children now have child trust funds and millions more will benefit in future; and notes that the Government contribution to child trust funds increases to £500 both at birth and age seven for lower income families.
Daniel Kawczynski:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely shocked about what I am going to say. I was about to make my speech in the debate on savers when I received a note from my office saying that there was a police officer there, demanding to see correspondence. The police were already present in my
office and I went to see them after making my speech. They said that they were investigating an important case with regard to correspondence that had been sent to Ministers and wanted to see handwriting samples from people who had written to me. I am appalled that officers can behave in that way—entering a Member of Parliament’s office, with no warrant, and demanding constituency correspondence. To my great embarrassment and eternal shame, I was so weak that I handed over the letter from my constituent that they demanded. I will have to live with that, but I am extremely embarrassed about it. After everything that has happened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), it is disgraceful that this is happening and I urge you to investigate.
Mr. Tobias Ellwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that shocking events are taking place. Is it not appropriate for the Home Secretary to come here to make a statement? We had assurances that no offices would be entered unless a warrant was produced. That clearly has not happened today and we deserve some sort of clarification from the Home Secretary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the great concern of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Clearly, I have no knowledge of the matter, but if it is as he says, it is obviously extremely serious, and my advice is to take it to the House of Commons authorities as quickly as possible.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was standing at the Bar of the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) raised his point of order, of which I had no knowledge at all. It seems to me, Sir, that you are representing Mr. Speaker. Should the matter not be referred immediately by you to him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard the point of order that has been raised. Hon. Members on both Front Benches have heard it, too. I can clearly report the matter immediately to Mr. Speaker and he will take whatever action he deems appropriate. That is all that we can do for the time being. My advice to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was on the course of action that he should take. I was not advising him of the course of action that I will take, which is as described by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack).
Business without Debate
delegated legislation
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 22 to 26 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.
That the draft Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 10 December, be approved.
That the draft European Union Military Staff (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 23 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.— (Ian Lucas.)
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order 9 December),
That this House takes note with approval of the Government’s assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2008 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.— (Ian Lucas.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 28 January (Standing Order No. 41A).
delegated legislation
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 28 and 29 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Machines in Bingo Premises) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 24 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limit) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 24 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.— (Ian Lucas.)
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13195/08: Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions
for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution to the most deprived persons in the community; and supports the Government’s concern about the appropriateness of the proposal as the EU should only act where there are clear additional benefits from collective efforts as compared with action by Member States, either individually or collectively.— (Ian Lucas.)
Petitions
Northern Rock
7.32 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): The petition, which is signed by 86 of my constituents, states:
The Petition of small shareholders and supporters of Northern rock of the Hexham constituency in the North East of England,
Declares that it welcomes the acknowledgement by the Government that it must pay compensation for nationalising Northern Rock plc, but that the terms of reference for the valuation of the shares are wrongly based as the company was not in administration and was still a “going concern”.
Further declares that if these terms are unchanged there will not be a fair compensation payment which will lead to many in our region having their savings and pensions undermined which in turn will have a negative impact on the North East’s economy.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to reconsider the terms of reference given to the valuer so that he can fully reflect the true value of Northern Rock shares.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
7.34 pm
Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): I have a petition in a similar vein, which I would like to present to the House on behalf of my constituent Mr. James Pagan and 87 other constituents.
The Petition of small shareholders and supporters of Northern Rock of the Gateshead, East and Washington, West constituency in the North East of England,
Declares that it welcomes the acknowledgement by the Government that it must pay compensation for nationalising Northern Rock plc, but that the terms of reference for the valuation of the shares are wrongly based as the company was not in administration and was still a “going concern”.
Further declares that if these terms are unchanged there will not be a fair compensation payment which will lead to many in our region having their savings and pensions undermined which in turn will have a negative impact on the North East’s economy.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to reconsider the terms of reference given to the valuer so that he can fully reflect the true value of Northern Rock shares.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Coronary Heart Disease
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Ian Lucas.)
7.35 pm
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity this evening to raise this issue, which is of great importance to my constituents.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, before the advent of vaccination, the most common causes of death and disability in this country were infectious diseases such as smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles and polio. The average life expectancy of a male baby born in 1900 was 45. Edwardian men considered themselves old in their early 40s. Our pursuit of the maxim that prevention is better than cure has been successful: it has changed the structure and quality of our lives, but much more remains to be done. Often, if we solve one set of public health problems, the next challenge looms clearer.
The main cause of death in the UK now is cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, with nearly half the deaths caused by the latter. Based on 2005 data, there are some 227,000 heart attacks each year. The British Heart Foundation estimates that 1.5 million men and 1.1 million women are living with CHD. That is an immense residual quantum of personal suffering, but also a burden on the economy. It is reckoned that coronary heart disease costs the UK economy nearly £9 billion a year, and £5.7 billion of it is a result of days lost owing to death and illness and to informal care costs.
What is the best medical handle to bear down on this? Well, we know that high blood cholesterol is the single biggest risk factor. It was from that finding that a strategy began to be put in place to address the problem. In April this year, the Department of Health launched “Putting Prevention First”—a national programme of vascular checks for 40 to 74-year-olds, including risk assessment and management. It is thought that that programme has the potential to prevent up to 9,500 heart attacks and strokes every year and to save no fewer than 2,000 lives.
Running in tandem with that is the key part of the mechanism: the annual reward and incentive programme based on GP practice achievement results. That is the quality and outcomes framework, which began in 2004 and is known as the QOF. The current QOF target is to get 60 per cent. of all identified patients to a target cholesterol level. However, there are elements within the overall control strategy that are not operating optimally—at least not yet. A report by the university of York of June 2007, which I commend to hon. Members, dealt with
“the link between healthcare spending and health outcomes”,
“Recent developments in circulatory drug therapy (especially statins) are acknowledged to be highly cost effective",
but we do not make full use of them. Our death rates from cardiovascular disease remain among the highest in western Europe. Tony Hockley, director of the Policy Analysis Centre, reckons that in England alone there are more than 7,000 unnecessary heart attacks a year because we do not diagnose and treat enough people with raised cholesterol levels.
I understand that cholesterol testing in the US is recommended for all adults over 20 every five years, that US targets for cholesterol reduction are significantly more ambitious than in the UK and that, broadly speaking, the hard-headed medical insurance companies in the US are prepared to pay for cholesterol-reducing medications on a preventive basis for those in high-risk groups. What makes sense to commercial ventures in the USA should make sense to a value-for-money-minded Treasury in the UK, too.
The big problem with QOF is that it has not moved with the times. The 2004 measure was based on recommendations made in 2000. There are inconsistencies with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines of 2008 and the Joint British Societies professional guidelines. The 2008 NICE guidelines on lipid modification and type 2 diabetes recommend a level of cholesterol in the blood 20 per cent. lower than the QOF provides for, but, as yet, the target remains static. That means that the way in which we pay GPs is not incentivising them adequately to treat patients down to ideal serum cholesterol levels. That represents a missed opportunity, and lives lost or blighted.
There is an additional anomaly. GPs can still qualify for their QOF incentives even if significant numbers of patients are excluded from the calculations under the exception reporting rules. That is fair up to a point. Practices should not necessarily be penalised if, for example, patients do not attend for review, or if a medication cannot be prescribed because of contra-indications. However, the exception reporting rate for cholesterol control varies widely in primary care trusts, from 5 to 15 per cent. Worse, 14 of the 40 PCTs with exception reporting rates above 10 per cent. are also meant to be “spearhead PCTs”, and therefore to be leading a drive to tackle public health problems such as smoking, obesity and poor diet in some of England’s most deprived areas. My own PCTs, Blackburn with Darwen and East Lancashire Teaching, have an exception reporting rate of 12.8 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively. We are left with more than a suspicion that the exception reporting rules are being used in a way that preserves GP income but does not maximise health service delivery, not least in the most deprived areas of the country.
The message is clear: the mechanism by which we incentivise GPs to deliver health improvement is outdated. It needs review, not least in bearing down on high exception reporting rates. As a nation, we invest a great deal in the NHS and we have a right to expect value for money and achievable goals in driving down rates of the main killer disease in Britain today.
I thank the Minister for attending today. She has previously expressed an interest in this topic in answer to parliamentary questions, and I look forward to hearing her response.
7.42 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |