Operation Jasmine (Care Home Abuse)

Debate between Andrew Smith and Nick Smith

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is one of the direct questions that I intend to ask the Minister.

In 2011, the Health and Safety Executive became involved, too, in the hope that its additional evidence would be the final push over that bar. Sadly, that did not happen. Instead, the charges against the director, who had a GP practice and 26 care homes across south Wales—a profitable empire—will lie on file.

A small number of convictions have been secured in relation to the neglect of elderly people, but no one served a custodial sentence. We have to ask ourselves whether that sorry conclusion could have been avoided. MPs have been told that a change in the QC part way through the case brought a different perspective as to the likely success of the case. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service decides the charges and the standard of evidence it requires, but given the enormous quantity of evidence collected, it does beg questions about the evidence threshold, how Operation Jasmine progressed and the management of the operation. It is clear, as others have said, that local police worked very hard on this case, but the results do not match that fine effort. Was there a well founded and unified understanding between the CPS and the police about what evidence was needed?

Given that the case took seven years, did anything slow down the operation and how could such roadblocks be avoided in the future? What advice does the CPS give to the police and others investigating abuses in care, and does it have a plan for lowering the bar for prosecutions in the future? Were high-level project management tools brought to bear on this investigation from the start, and is the legal definition of “neglect” fit for purpose in cases such as this?

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues in Wales on pursuing this case on behalf of the victims and in the interests of higher standards in home care. Am I correct in my understanding that while the principal prosecution collapsed because the principal defendant was unfit to respond to the charges, the co-defendant is not in such a position and yet action is not being proceeded against him? Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about that, and would he like to put that point to the Minister and ask why that person cannot be prosecuted?

[Nick Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is indeed the case, and it would be good to hear from the Minister why that prosecution was not taken forward.

I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask for some answers. He has now promised a substantive reply, but further action might be needed. We have a duty to those elderly people who have passed away, the families who are still fighting on their behalf and those with no family and with no voice. We must ensure that their story is put on the record.

The inquiry into poor care at Stafford hospital showed how important it is to record individual cases and to make the information public. I want the QC’s final opinion on the allegations in this case to be made public, and the Director of Public Prosecutions or the head of the CPS in Gwent to meet MPs and members of the victims’ action group. I want them to be joined by representatives from the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, and I want key evidence collected for this trial to be made public.

There have been calls for a public inquiry. I need to know what criteria the Minister will bring to bear when considering such calls.

Electoral Registration

Debate between Andrew Smith and Nick Smith

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend has helpfully corrected me. He points to the difficulties of churn in many parts of the UK. I have been to the lovely town of Rhyl, and I know of the difficulties there in getting a complete register.

Last week, the Minister said that

“continuous registration is working for the majority of the population in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 142.]

Registration of 51% would be a majority, but surely that is wordplay and shows a lack of ambition; after all, 71% completion is failing nearly a third of the eligible electorate. The Government must up their game. Electoral registration needs to be professionally marketed and administered in all Government contact with the public, and perhaps with private sector data as well. Given concerns about under-registration, there should be a full carry-forward of postal or proxy votes for the 2015 general election. If that does not happen, the Government must ensure that sufficient resources are provided, so that as many postal voters as possible are verified and able to vote.

As a constructive critic, the independent Electoral Commission must have an absolutely central role in the switch to IER. I hope that the Minister will tell us today when online voter registration will be ready for launch. The Government must invest in and develop accessible online registration with greater speed. If the internet is used successfully for banking and payment systems, surely it can be developed for voter registration.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way during this important debate. Does he agree that this plethora of initiatives—they are absolutely essential, as he is arguing—should include one by the Electoral Commission aimed specifically at people with literacy problems? I believe that they are under-represented on the register, and they certainly are in voting. Obviously, for that initiative to reach them, it needs to be delivered through audiovisual advertising.

[Nick Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a good argument, and I hope that that will be included in the studies taking place. It is essential that as many people as possible can register and vote.

As we know, changes to electoral registration will be made at a time when local authorities face significant cuts. Expenditure in this area should be prioritised, because our democracy is too important to be whittled away by a thousand cuts.

Speech Therapy Services (Children)

Debate between Andrew Smith and Nick Smith

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I join other Members in warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately, clearly from unrivalled personal experience and knowledge, about this important area. I agree with the high-quality contributions we have heard from all parts of the Chamber and I hope that the debate sends a powerful message to the Government about the importance of services in this area.

I want to speak in particular about the special value of the ACE—Aiding Communication in Education—centre to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which is based in my constituency, and of ACE North, which is based in Oldham. The centres provide a unique service for parents and professionals, with joint health and education-based approaches, combining whatever it takes to give children with severe communication difficulties access to communication, education and, thereby, independence.

I have seen at first hand the remarkable—often moving—difference the centres make in children’s lives. I took former Labour leader John Smith to the centre once and we were moved almost to tears watching a young girl learning to communicate using assistive technology, opening a world that would otherwise have been closed to her.

The centres provide a level of clinical expertise far beyond what is provided by the statutory services for children with such complex disabilities. Their intervention not only changes lives but saves money in later life. They also save money by preventing cases from reaching tribunals, which may be one of the reasons why some local authorities ask them for assistance.

The centres have a huge loan library of specialist equipment that children and their parents can try before they buy. That saves authorities buying unsuitable, expensive communication devices, which can cost many thousands of pounds and which would, if inappropriately purchased, end up in the school cupboard. The centres also work with the IT sector in a rapidly changing area to develop more effective aids to communication. At the point of use, advice to parents is free and independent, which is a lifeline for families learning to live with and support a child with severe communication difficulties.

The future of the centres and the services they provide is under pressure and under threat, and there are two main reasons for that. One is that the provision of direct funding, which central Government made available through grants and project support, is being shifted to local authorities. We should sound a note of caution to those who, under the mantra of localism, would shift all funding in the direction of local authorities, because highly specialist services can be marginalised and lose out in the process.

The other problem is that although the centres charge local authorities to recoup operation costs, the money is not always forthcoming at the necessary level. Furthermore, charitable donations, which the centres also attract, have decreased considerably due to the tougher competition facing all areas of the third sector in this difficult financial climate.

We therefore face a threat to a vital service. Were that service to go, we would lose something that, since 1984, has given thousands of severely disabled young people a voice and a chance in life. To run down these vital services in the national year of speech, language and communication would clearly be perverse and unacceptable.

[Nick Smith]

I do not want to make a partisan point, but the previous Government showed great leadership on this topic. They set up the Bercow review, and the then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families established the communication champion. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, hope that the new Government will show the same energy, dedication and enthusiasm as the previous Government in pursuing change on this important topic?

[Mr Smith]

Yes, I certainly endorse that, although I was not making a party political point, because the shift towards the presumption of local authority funding clearly did not start with the current Administration.

It would be disastrous and a tragedy if we removed the centres, losing their specialist experience and their huge loan library of communication equipment, in a climate where there is technology to help children, but the understanding, guidance and expertise to help them use it is often in desperately short supply. The same is true of the loss of specialist training for teachers and therapists in how to use the technology to support and motivate children in learning and moving towards independence.

The centres therefore face a serious situation, and I ask the Minister for an assurance that central Government sustainability funding for the ACE centres will continue for the full three years, until April 2012. On the centres’ service-level agreements with local authorities, what assurances can she give that councils will have, or will be guided to make available, the resources to ensure that the appropriate assessment and help is available in their area to children who need it? Will she look at providing immediate additional support from the sustainability services fund and the transition fund to ensure the future of the ACE centres? I should also be grateful if she could give an assurance that she will meet representatives of the centres to discuss the way forward so that we can save these valuable services.