Coronary Heart Disease (Hansard, 21 December 1999)

§ 1. Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
If he will make a statement on the development of coronary heart disease services. [102260]

§ The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
The White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" set a target to reduce the death rate from heart disease, stroke and related illnesses by at least 40 per cent. by 2010. Modernising cardiac services is one of the Government's top health priorities.

§ Mr. Hoyle
Does my right hon. Friend accept that more investment is needed for coronary heart disease services, both locally and nationally and especially in the north-west, as there is a dire need to ensure that lives are not lost at the rate that they were in the previous 18 years? When will he provide details of authorities' allocations for 2000–01?

§ Mr. Milburn
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need to modernise our cardiac services, in his part of the country and elsewhere, because they suffered years of neglect under the previous Government. That is precisely why we have made the modernisation of cardiac services one of our top priorities. Today, I have placed in the Vote Office details of health authority allocations for the year beginning April 2000, and the average cash increase is 6.8 per cent. compared with 6.6 per cent. for this year. That is sensible sustained investment, which will continue the Government' s 10-year programme of modernisation, 648 and it includes extra money for cardiac services so that thousands more heart patients can get the early access to heart surgery that they need.

§ Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)
Does the Secretary of State recall promising the House that hospital consultants would help shape the local health service as they have been unable to do under the internal market"—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 165.]? How does he reconcile that promise with a letter from the senior cardiologist at the Royal Surrey hospital—a copy of which I sent him two weeks ago—saying that there has been a 20 per cent. cut in the budget for heart tests at the Royal Surrey and in the region since the Government came to power as a direct result of his reforms and the transfer of responsibility for that budget from local doctors to the local health authority?

§ Mr. Milburn
On the specific issue, I am aware of the correspondence and some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) have raised, but I understand that those allegations are not wholly substantiated. I shall be meeting the right hon. Lady this afternoon to talk about some of the issues, but the hon. Gentleman has to be very careful: it is not true that, somehow or other, the problems with cardiac surgery began on 1 May 1997. We acknowledge that there are problems, but the truth is that cardiac services in our country suffered years if not decades of neglect when his party was in office. We have the appalling coincidence of Britain having some of the highest rates of cardiac heart disease and some of the lowest rates of cardiac intervention in the developed world. We are putting that right by investing more money, which his party opposes.

§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Although there is a crying need for resources for coronary heart disease services throughout the country, may I, on behalf of my constituents, congratulate the Government on allowing a rate of increase to health authorities that is triple the rate of inflation? That is almost unprecedented in British history.

§ Mr. Milburn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we are putting more money into the national health service and today we are paying the second instalment of the record cash injection that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a year ago. That is money for modernisation and it is opposed by the Conservative party, which described it as reckless, mad and irresponsible. Conservative Members cannot have their cake and eat it—even their Christmas cake, at this time of year—and, even though my remarks are not seasonal, they cannot get away with complaining about the state of cardiac services and opposing extra investment in our public services at the same time. They have to come off the fence. It is about time that we had honesty in the debate from the Conservative party: does it support or oppose extra investment in our key public services?

§ Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the promised extra money for cardiology is new money or part of the extra £21 billion 649 that has already been allocated over the next three years? If it is part of that £21 billion, which other services will be cut to fund it?

§ Mr. Milburn
The hon. Lady needs to understand that that is extra money on top of the extra money that is already going in this year. There is extra new money this year, extra new money on top of that next year and extra new money on top of that the year after. She should also understand that all that extra investment is opposed by the Conservative party under its tax and spending plans because its priority is tax cuts for the privileged few, which would be achieved at the expense of public services for the many.

§ Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)
In this "year of delivery", how does the Secretary of State square his announcement of an increase in the number of heart specialists by more than 400 with the fact that, according to the chairman of the British Medical Association, those specialists are already on the NHS training ladder? In the new Labour lexicon, does the word "extra" mean the same in relation to the number of doctors as it means in relation to the number of police on the beat?

§ Mr. Milburn
That was a tricky one! As the hon. Lady knows fine well, there is a difference between doctors in training and doctors in post. I decided that there would be extra consultant posts.
There is a difference between being in training and being in post. The Opposition are in training; we are in post.