Cystic Fibrosis

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Kate Green

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of allocation of lungs for transplant. In the north-west of England we have poor levels of transplant. People wait longer and are more likely to die on the waiting list. Does she agree that it is important that the Minister presses for the modelling, which I understand is being carried out, on the impact of a national allocation scheme to be given great attention and accelerated if possible, so that we can have the evidence on the benefits of such a scheme in this country as quickly as possible?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, it makes such a difference if more people come forward as donors, not just for lung transplants but for many other types of donation as well, from blood through to other organs. I urge the Minister to give this the utmost priority, because, as we have said, it can make such a difference to people’s lives.

The Department of Health has advised that the most recent analysis showed no significant difference in allocation across UK lung transplant centres. But the Cystic Fibrosis Trust clearly believes that an improved allocation system could address the shocking fact that one in three cystic fibrosis patients die before they get to the top of the waiting list. So I ask the Minister to review this with NHSBT, and consider the evidence from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. It would also be helpful if she could provide more information on the current review by the cardiothoracic organs advisory group, and say whether it is considering a national allocation system, as referred to by my hon. Friend, or consulting stakeholders such as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and specialist centres, and when it is likely to report.

The “Hope for more” report also highlights that 62% of survey respondents reported that psychosocial support during the whole transplant process is insufficient, and concludes:

“The demand for services that assist the family and individuals in coping with cystic fibrosis is drastically underestimated”.

In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Minister explained that decisions on psychosocial support are a matter for clinicians and commissioners, but I would urge further consideration of the report’s findings and how the Department of Health can help to improve provision and ensure that clinicians have the resources that they need, working with commissioners to address gaps in information, support and psychosocial services for patients waiting for a transplant and post-operative.

It is clear that the specialist centres, working with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, are making an incalculable difference to their patients’ lives. The trust is putting real money into the provision of services for cystic fibrosis patients. In 2012-13, the trust contributed more than £1.6 million to research projects, and more than £1.1 million to clinical care. It also provides a helpline that takes more than 3,000 calls every year, and it is able to provide limited welfare grants to people with cystic fibrosis and their families who are, understandably, struggling with the impact the condition can have on their lives.

I congratulate the Cystic Fibrosis Trust on its work and all those people that I met at the cystic fibrosis centre in Bristol, who were so dedicated and keen to get across to me the fact that with more resources they would be able to do an even better job in coping with the increased number of patients. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Kate Green

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I was saying, Mr X needs to return to the UK to look after his elderly parents who are recovering from cancer. They used to go on a fairly regular basis to visit him, his wife and child, but they are now too ill and infirm to visit. Mr X has a professional job in Thailand, which he has held down for a long time. It is a decent salary according to local rates, but it is not the equivalent of the £18,600 earnings limit in the UK. It is enough to provide him with the same living standards in Thailand as he would have if he were on that sort of salary in the UK—it is obviously a lot cheaper to live there. Under the new rules, Mr X will have to leave his wife behind while he finds work in the UK, which he is not prepared to do—by which I mean not that he is not prepared to find work, but that he is not prepared to leave his wife behind. They are now considering moving to Spain instead, so that he is reasonably close to his parents and it will be easier for his wife to join him, perhaps becoming a Spanish national, which would then allow them to enter the UK.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is describing a situation that we on the all-party group inquiry into family migration have heard several times. Does she agree that there is a further nonsense to the situation she describes? If the family is not able to come in and look after the parents, instead of the family providing care, this will pile costs on for public social care and public health services.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, as she always does. If I understand the Government’s ideological position on this issue, they want to support families and very much approve of carers taking on responsibility for elderly parents or others within their family network. The rule that we are talking about operates to prevent that from happening.

The second case features Mr Z and Ms Z who came to see me in my constituency surgery a few weeks ago. They were married in the UK in March 2011. She is a British citizen and her husband, who had been living and working in the UK for six years under a valid work permit, is South African. He was in highly paid professional work in the UK, but soon after they married, he was made redundant. Although he could probably have secured another job at a similarly high salary in the UK, they decided to take a chance and move to Cape Town for a couple of years.

After two years in South Africa, however, they have decided that they want to return to the UK, but the rules changed while they were away. He will not be allowed to join his wife in the UK unless she earns more than £18,600—despite the fact that he is a highly skilled computer programmer who could expect to earn perhaps £60,000 a year in the UK. Before they left for Cape Town, my woman constituent was earning £26,000 a year as a pub manager. As she has been out of work for two years in Cape Town, however, there is a gap in her CV, so she is unlikely to be able to walk straight back into a manager’s position, although she aspires to do so in a couple of years’ time. Wages in the pub trade are not particularly high, so it is likely she will start on a salary below £18,600. As I said, they would have a joint income as a family of about £75,000 because her husband could get a well-paid job, but under the new rules it is based on her income, so he would not be able to join her.