Stroke Sufferers

That was my mistake. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I want to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion, and I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). It was incredibly humbling to hear of his personal experience, as well as enormously informative for us all. I think we all want to thank him for sharing it, and for his contribution to the debate. I reiterate what has been said about his being an inspiration to many people who have suffered strokes, in showing what people can do and how they can come back from a stroke. The way in which he has served his constituents is a tribute to him. The hon. Gentleman also made an interesting point when he mentioned the wisdom of thinking before we speak. Many hon. Members could remember that—and I certainly do not exempt myself from that group. I had a vivid reminder about strokes a few weeks ago, when the mother of one of my best friends unfortunately suffered a severe stroke. She was in the highlands of Scotland and it was only thanks to the response of the air ambulance, and the wonderful medical care that I am delighted to say she received, that she is still with us. She is now recovering. It is a slow recovery but she is making good progress. As we have heard, the effects of stroke can vary enormously. Stroke is the third biggest cause of death in the UK—there are about 50,000 such deaths every year—and the largest single cause of disability. Each year, 110,000 people in England alone suffer a stroke. Stroke affects more women than breast cancer. It is estimated that the overall costs of treatment for strokes and related and subsequent disabilities is a staggering £2.8 billion a year. As we have heard in eloquent speeches from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and other hon. Members, the debate is important because we must ensure that care of the best quality, including consistent access to treatment, is available for those who suffer strokes, but also because of the need for prevention. That is why the Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the national stroke strategy, which was published in December. The chief executive of the Stroke Association, Jon Barrick, described it as"““a momentous opportunity to transform the outcomes and lives of stroke survivors.””" What the debate is about—as I am sure we would all agree and the Minister would acknowledge—is checking that we are taking that momentous opportunity, and seeing whether people are receiving better care than they were 10 months ago. The initial signs are that some progress is being made. Even before the strategy was announced, 97 per cent. of hospitals had a stroke unit, and more than 90 per cent. of stroke units providing acute care had access to brain imaging within 24 hours of admission. That is a big increase—82 per cent.—since 2004, and is to be commended. However, there are certain points that we need to examine, and the audit this year by the Royal College of Physicians found that only 45 per cent. of hospitals could meet the recommendation made in the strategy that high-risk patients who had a transient ischemic attack or mini-stroke—and I share the wish of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North to use ordinary phrases that mean something to people—should be examined and treated within 48 hours. Given that the Stroke Association has pointed out that meeting that one target could result in an 80 per cent. reduction in the number of people going on to have a full stroke, the standard is one that needs real focus both now and as the strategy progresses. A requirement has been placed on primary care trusts to set out their plans for improving stroke services for 2008-09. The House should welcome that, and monitor it. However, the Stroke Association has voiced concern that an absence of national targets and time scales for those targets in the strategy may affect progress. It is important to say that some strategic health authorities have gone further than the strategy specifies, and have included a timetable for the implementation of selected recommendations, but serious consideration should be given to setting a timetable across the board for implementation of the targets, so that we can achieve the speed of change that we need, and be confident that people are getting consistent access to services in all areas. Good progress has been made, which is enormously encouraging, and we all welcome that. I want to ask the Minister whether we can examine progress annually. Today's debate is useful, but we should continue to monitor what happens. Most of the debate today has rightly focused on issues such as prevention and acute hospital treatment and care, but the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight in particular dealt with the huge importance of long-term care and community support following a stroke. The importance of effective long-term care and the need for stroke sufferers to be active participants in their treatment has been well documented. According to the Stroke Association, only about half the individuals who have experienced a stroke receive the rehabilitation that they need in the first six months following their discharge from hospital. In the next six months only one in five receive the help, support and treatment they are deemed to need. That is something on which the strategy should focus, and I hope that the Minister will agree. One of the most important issues in the debate is embodied in one of the figures that has been quoted: 40 per cent. of strokes can be prevented. The importance of awareness of strokes cannot be overestimated. One concern is that polling by the Stroke Association found that one in five GPs do not refer about 20 per cent. of cases of mini-stroke. Just over half of GPs said that they would refer someone with a suspected stroke immediately. A concentrated effort must be made to ensure that strokes are regarded as nothing short of a medical emergency, in which time is of the essence, and that all treatment is recommended with that in mind. I am aware that NICE and the Royal College of Physicians recently published guidelines, and I hope that there will be a concerted effort across the board. I pay tribute to the Government for the £12 million that is to be invested in the next few years in awareness activity. That is a common-sense thing to do, considering the enormous cost of £2.8 billion that I have already mentioned. I should like an assurance from the Minister that any public awareness campaign will take account of the needs of some ethnic minority groups that are at greater risk of strokes, and of the possibility that it may be more difficult to reach those groups. Finally, there is a need for more research. The Stroke Association funds £2.5 million of research, and we must always look for ways to improve what is done. To conclude, this has been an excellent debate. It could not have been more timely and I do not think that it could have been more informative or constructive for all of us. I simply urge the Minister to allow us all to continue to contribute to monitoring the progress of this very important and very welcome strategy, and I look forward to hearing his response to the debate.