The decision by NICE last year to deny the English and Welsh access to Velcade, a drug clinically proven to extend the lives of those with myeloma was yet another example of how the devolution set in play by the Labour government has lead to blatant unfairness in the provision of healthcare in Britain. Whether NICE feels Velcade is worthy of being provided on the NHS or not is not my point. If we believe in a nationalised healthcare service, ‘free’ at the point of delivery to all Britons irrespective of their means, how can we tolerate any regional discrepancies in its provision?

What I think is particularly galling for the English is the fact that more money is spent per head on healthcare in Scotland despite more tax being collected ‘South of the Border’. This has been the case for many years since the introduction of the so-called Barnett formula. The 2005 figures for annual health expenditure per head were as follows (source: NAO) –

England £1,350 per head
Scotland £1,563 per head

So, when Gordon Brown talks about increased spending to match European levels take note; we have had a NHS system in Scotland funded at European levels for many years. It would, therefore, be interesting to know what its ‘output’ has been? How healthy are our Scottish neighbours?

Today, the government has revealed that Scotland has the highest rates of cancer in the UK. According to the Office for National Statistics, there were 446 new cases of cancer per 100,000 males and 379 per 100,000 females north of the border between 2002 and 2004. In contrast, England had 394 and 338 cases respectively. Furthermore, Scotland also had the highest overall death rate for cancer in the UK. And let’s not get on to the Scottish incidence of ischaemic heart disease, smoking rates and intravenous drug use, for that would be truly depressing.

Sadly, these worrying results are despite NHS Scotland achieving the following:

• 75 doctors for every 100,000 people (compared to 55 in England)
• twice as many hospital beds as found in England
• an average GP list size of 1,400 (compared to 1,840 in England)

These figures, in the light of the health outcomes mentioned above, clearly indicate that increased spending within an unreformed health system does not improve the public’s health. For if improved health outcomes were that easy to achieve, the Scots’ would be shouting over Hadrian’s Wall about their outstanding health record. They’re not. Ill health is primarily caused by an individual’s social circumstances: diet, housing, prevalence of smoking, marital breakdown, the preponderance of illicit drug use (to name but a few). Hence, increasing spending on hospitals, as Scottish politicians have been particularly apt to call for, will not make much impact upon the incidence of the chronic diseases that bedevil the Scottish people.

The changes needed in Scotland to improve health are more profound. Firstly, there needs to be a shift away from the state towards the individual: one’s health should primarily be one’s responsibility. Secondly, government money should be concentrated on improving housing and public health provision, not on high-profile new hospitals. And finally, Scotland should start voting Tory again, for that will be the only way that the first two changes will ever be implemented.

Believing that the object of any Education Policy should be the welfare of the child rather than the forwarding of some plan of educational progress, based on social theories, and keeping in mind that our immediate aim should be to develop our existing national system on practical lines, and to link up elementary education more closely with the various forms of advanced study… -Stanley Baldwin, 1924 Election Address

Today, Iain Duncan Smith releases his long-awaited report into poverty and social justice within British society. His policy review group has titled the report ‘Breakthrough Britain’, and it has uncovered much evidence about the root causes of poverty and social breakdown. Educational failure, family breakdown and addiction have all been highlighted by his team as major contributory factors to social ills within British communities.

The approach outlined in the ‘Breakthrough Britain’ report not only emphasises the importance of individual people being responsible for their own choices, it also highlights the role of government in helping people make the right choices in their adult lives, both for themselves and their offspring. Proper and practical education are clearly parts of the framework needed to lift people out of a desperate situation.

Last night, I chaired a policy forum meeting of Party activists from two local constituencies, Chesham & Amersham and Beaconsfield, discussing the importance and relevance of practical education in 21st century Britain. After much debate, we agreed on the principle importance of numeracy and literacy skills underpinning a future practical education. The general belief was that the education system should equip all of our young with the skills needed to realise their potential, be that academic or practical. It should also facilitate the full participation of all people in British society, both economically and culturally. And not only should this education attainment be limited to the young, but that it should also be applied to the millions of adults who sadly have poor numeracy and literacy skills as a consequence of the failed education policies of the past. For their full and active participation in future British society was strongly felt by all present to benefit British society.

In preparation for last night’s meeting, I discovered that Conservative Party policy on education had changed little in the last eighty years. The quotation above was taken from Balfour’s ‘manifesto’ in 1924. We Conservatives have always believed in practical politics, that is, policies that directly benefit individuals. Effective education has always been regarded as important by Conservatives because we have always known that it faciltates personal fulfilment, raises self-esteem and, above all, improves social mobility.

The ‘Breakthrough Britain’ report is a bold attempt to highlight the failures of the social experiment instituted and continued by Labour administrations over the last half century. It falls to the Conservative Party to be bold and brave in this realm of domestic policy, for we have a moral responsibility to help those trapped in poverty by Socialist dogma. Never has it been so clear that Britain now needs a resurgent Conservative Party to improve the lives of all Britons.

Protect and promote the health of patients and the public… Be honest and open and act with integrity…. Never abuse your patients’ trust in you or the public’s trust in the profession…. – General Medical Council

The news that two doctors have been arrested and a house full of medical students has been allegedly raided in Liverpool in connection with the latest terrorist outrages, has no doubt shocked the nation. The medical profession, of which I am a member, is rightly expected by the general public to believe in the alleviation of suffering and the protection of life. So, for any of its members to be associated with such heinous acts is disturbing.

The Hippocratic oath, an ancient script written to give guidance to Greek physicians, is widely believed by patients to be the bedrock of ethical medical practice. In it, reference is made to doing no harm to patients. Following the oath is, however, not a requirement of medical practice in the UK. Indeed, part of the oath relates to not procuring an abortion for a woman, an act which some British doctors routinely undertake. Hence today, the General Medical Council (GMC) issues a document that details general principles of good medical practice. Closer analysis of this more modern text indicates that some of the alleged perpetrators of the terrorist attempts this weekend were not up to date with GMC guidelines. Either that, or they are just hypocrites of the worst kind.

If any doctor registered in this country has been found to be at all involved, indeed at all sympathetic, to these latest attempts to kill and maim innocent British civilians, the response of the government should be swift and severe. The NHS relies heavily upon doctors who have been trained abroad, often ironically from places in dire need of medical personnel. Our trust in those doctors needs protecting, for trust is the basis for any interaction between doctor and patient. These doctors and medical students will have eroded that trust if found to have been involved. Any possibility that an Iraqi-trained doctor came here to injure and take life indiscriminately is dreadful.