Contaminated Blood

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Burnham

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend is right to say that action needs to be taken. He will understand why, if we are to do the right job for victims and the beneficiaries of previous schemes, we must do so in a considered way and with speed, but it must be a proper process. Large amounts of public money are involved, and we must also ensure fairness to those people who have suffered as a result of this terrible series of events. I hope my hon. Friend will understand why we will undertake a consultation, even though it will be short. That does not preclude beneficiaries coming forward now with their views about what should be changed in the existing schemes to ensure fairness and equity in the schemes that supersede them.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who has been tireless in pursuit of answers for the victims of contaminated blood. Her powerful words today will have spoken for many people across the country.

This scandal is one of the worst injustices this country has seen. Thousands died, and thousands of families were destroyed through the negligence of public bodies. For years, the response from Governments of all colours to the victims could be described at best as grudging, and at worst as dismissive, and it falls to this Parliament to resolve today to end this injustice once and for all.

The Prime Minister’s apology in March marked an important moment on the journey for justice, and we welcomed his commitment to respond to the Penrose report

“as a matter of priority.”

We do not doubt the sincerity of that commitment, but does the Minister understand the disappointment that people felt when instead of the promised full statement, a written statement was released at 2 pm on a Friday afternoon, which failed to answer the key questions? The Minister failed to set a clear timetable for when the £25 million promised by the Prime Minister will be made available to those currently receiving support, and I think I heard him imply that it might go into the next financial year of 2016-17. May I press him further? Will he work to ensure that the funding is made available to victims this year, as I think that is what people want to hear from him today?

On disclosure, I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to releasing additional documents, but does the Minister accept that alongside that release we need a process to help families understand those documents and finally to get to the full truth of what went wrong? Will he commit, at the very least, to a panel on the Hillsborough model, or to a public inquiry, to provide a full commentary on the extent to which disclosure on this matter would add to public understanding of the scandal?

Finally, although no amount of money can ever fully make up for what happened, we owe those still living with the consequences the dignity of a lasting settlement. People will therefore be disappointed that any decisions on future support appear to have been postponed until the spending review. Will the Minister put a timeframe on when the Government will make their next statement about a full and final settlement? Given the widespread concerns about current arrangements, does he acknowledge that the longer this goes on, the longer we leave in place a system that is not working and leaves victims going cap in hand for support, which only adds to their sense of injustice?

We congratulate the Government on their progress in recent months, but now is the time for a resolution. This injustice has gone on long enough. Further delay adds insult and injury to that injustice. A full, fair and final resolution is now required.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his measured words. He is right to say that it falls to this Parliament to come to a reasonable and fair conclusion. He is also right to point to the Prime Minister’s apology. I know from my own experience of talking to victims that that was a very important moment for many.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the £25 million. What I meant by my remarks is that I hope it will be spent this year in furtherance of the transition to a new scheme, but should money not be spent it will not be squirreled away for other purposes. It will remain allocated for beneficiaries.

On the timing of the statement, our purpose was to update Parliament on progress as soon as possible. Beneficiaries have been waiting for 30 years, so it is understandable that they would like to see faster work. We are working at full pelt, but that work has to be done in tandem with discussions on the spending review. This will be one of the first outcomes from the review, which is why we anticipate having a transition to the new scheme and a consultation finished by the end of this year.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman refers to a panel and to the work done by the Hillsborough inquiry. I know he has personal experience of that, not least because of his own extraordinary work in bringing it about. I would suggest that in this instance speed is of the essence. I think we all understand where we need to get to. We need to ensure that the new scheme is comprehensive in addressing the perceived and actual failings in the existing five schemes, and that that is done as quickly as possible. I would not like an inquiry to get in the way of the speed with which we can do that.

NHS Success Regime

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Burnham

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

I welcome the success regime, details of which were published by Monitor yesterday. The purpose of the success regime is to improve health and care services for patients in local health and care systems that are struggling with financial or quality problems. It will build on the improvements made through the special measures regime, recognising that some of the underlying reasons may result from intrinsic structural problems in the local health economy. This will therefore make sure issues are addressed in the region, not just in one organisation.

The regime is designed to make improvements in some of the most challenged health and care economies. The first sites to enter the regime—North Cumbria, Essex and North East and West Devon—are facing some of the most significant challenges in England. They have been selected based on data such as quality metrics, financial performance and other qualitative information.

Unlike under previous interventions, this success regime will look at the whole health and care economy: providers, such as hospital trusts, service commissioners, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities will be central to the discussions. It will be supported by three national NHS bodies, whereas existing interventions tend to be delivered by individual organisations and to concentrate on one part of a health economy—for example, the commissioning assurance framework led by NHS England that concentrates solely on commissioners, or special measures led by NHS England, the Trust Development Authority or Monitor, which focuses on providers.

Together, Monitor, TDA and NHS England, with local commissioners, patients, their representatives such as Healthwatch England and health and wellbeing boards will aim to address systemic issues. The national bodies will provide support all the way through to implementation, with a focus on supporting and developing local leadership through the process.

[Andy Burnham]

As we have just heard, this announcement has far-reaching implications for people in Essex, Cumbria and Devon. It was being finalised on Tuesday, when the House was engaged in a full day’s debate on the national health service, yet there was not one single mention of it during the debate. What are we to make of that, and why was the Secretary of State not here to make this announcement to the House? Why does he think that it is always more important to make announcements in television studios or to outside conferences than to Members of Parliament in the House of Commons? That is not acceptable. People in Cumbria, Essex and Devon will be worried about what the Minister has just said, and what it means for health services in their areas.

First things first. Can the Minister confirm that services in those areas are safe and sustainable? Are there enough staff, and will work be undertaken immediately to deal with staff shortages? Are plans being drawn up to close A and E departments, or other services, as part of this process? Could it mean mergers between organisations, and job losses?

We welcome action that means taking a broader view of challenged health economies—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has long called for such action—but what will the new regime mean for local NHS bodies? Will it be possible for NHS England to overrule them? The House will recall the last occasion on which the Secretary of State tried to take sweeping powers to close health services over the heads of local people in south London. It did not end well; indeed, it ended with his being defeated in the High Court. Can the Minister assure us that patients will be consulted before any changes go ahead?

Is not the fact that NHS is taking drastic powers over whole swathes of the NHS in three counties a sign of the failure of the Government’s plans for local commissioning, and evidence of five years of failure of Tory health policies? Is it not evidence that care failures are more likely, not less likely, on the Tories’ watch?

This is no way to run a health service, and no way to treat Parliament. The Minister, along with the Secretary of State, is trying to shift the blame for things that have gone wrong in the NHS on their watch—for problems that are of their making. We will not let the Secretary of State do that. He should have been here to do Members who are affected by this announcement the courtesy of giving them answers, and I ask his junior Minister to relay that to him directly after the debate.

[Ben Gummer]

The shadow Secretary of State has spoken at length—in his answer to his urgent question—about NHS bodies. He has spoken about local commissioners, about NHS England and about the Department of Health, but Members will have noted that there was one group of people about whom he did not speak, and that was patients. It is extraordinary that, once again, he has come here to speak, again and again, about structures—about the NHS and its bodies, about jobs, about providers and about deliverers—but not about the people who are being failed at local level, namely patients in Essex, west and north-east Devon and north Cumbria.

Let me deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s points in detail. First, he made accusations about television studios. I think it is a bit of a cheek to make such claims—and I should tell the House that the Secretary of State will very shortly be addressing the NHS Confederation.

[Andy Burnham]

So that is more important than this?

[Ben Gummer]

The urgent question was submitted this morning.

Coming from a shadow Secretary of State who is, one might suspect, using urgent questions and the subject of the NHS not to address issues relating to the quality of care, but for his own political reasons—as he always has—this was a shameless attack. It reflected rather badly on the right hon. Gentleman himself, rather than reflecting on the cause that he should seek to pursue: the better care of patients, which lies at the heart of what NHS England is attempting to do. If he had read what Simon Stevens said when he announced the plans yesterday to the NHS Confederation, he would have noted that they are being drawn up, co-ordinated and, in part, led by local commissioners rather than—as was the case before—by monolithic centralised bodies headed by bureaucrats. This process is being led, locally, by clinicians, who are being supported and helped by NHS England and professional regulators.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about staff shortages. I am surprised that he mentions that, given that he was in part the author of the staff shortages that hobbled the NHS at the end of the previous Administration and that led in part to the problems at Mid Staffordshire that we have been seeking to address. Only this Government, in their previous incarnation, promised to correct that situation, in part through our pledges on GP numbers over the next five years.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about plans for accident and emergency departments and about job losses. I would say to him that it is different this time. These plans are being drawn up by local commissioners, who are now beginning the process of working out how to improve their local health economy. This is not a plan that will be devised centrally in Whitehall, imposed on local areas and announced as a done deal for local people. I know that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is used to, but in this instance it is a genuine conversation between local patients and local commissioners with the aim of improving their local health economies, and it will be supported by national bodies.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about south London and about consultation. I was a candidate in a constituency that had a solution imposed on it, during his tenure as Minister for Health, without any decent consultation. That proposal was eventually thrown out. The previous Government never consulted local people properly when he was in control, but we have changed that. These local plans will involve local people, patient bodies and health and wellbeing boards from the outset.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about the powers of NHS England, about localisation and about the co-ordination of local services. I ask him once again to go back and read Simon Stevens’s speech. He will see how things have changed. This is not about decisions being made by politicians in Whitehall. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman does not know the solution to the problems in the local health economies in Devon, Essex and Cumbria—

National Health Service

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman uses the word “manipulate”. May I say that I take great exception to that? I have read out the Treasury statistical analysis from this July. If he is telling me that I have misrepresented it, let him stand up again now and say so. If not, he should hold his peace. I remind him that his party’s Government delivered a much deeper cut to Wales than to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Labour Administration are now dealing with the consequences of that.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s figures depended on the lack of what he called a ring fence in the social care transfer of £1 billion. I can assure him that as far as Suffolk is concerned, there is absolutely no problem in trying to deal with the ring fence. In fact, the county council spends more than the amount that was previously ring-fenced, because of the pressure on social care.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman was not listening. The social care transfer comes in for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, but I was talking about the year 2010-11 and, in the year ended, there was a real-terms cut to the NHS, as confirmed by Treasury figures. This debate is about that fact. He and his hon. Friends stood at the election, with those airbrushed posters all around them, promising that they would not cut the NHS, but in their first year in office, they delivered a real-terms cut to the NHS.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Ben Gummer and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Sure Start was ring-fenced—that was the policy of our Government. The Labour manifesto talks of strengthening early intervention. I am holding the Prime Minister to account for what he said when he was seeking the votes of people in this country. He said, in terms, that he would strengthen Sure Start, so I am saying that we should look at the evidence on the ground. Is Sure Start strengthening or weakening? When I read the hon. Gentleman some of the evidence, I hope that he will make an honest judgment on whether the service is getting better or is under threat.

The research from the Library tells us that in England the average cut in the EIG between 2010-11 and 2011-12 is £50 for every child in this country. Altogether that is absolute proof that the PM, who is undoubtedly a good talker—a PR man—is dangerously cavalier with the facts at the Dispatch Box, as Oxford university recently found to its cost. He said at the election that he would protect Sure Start, but in fact he has cut it, in real terms, by about a quarter. This takes us to the crux of the matter. The Government have not had the guts to be honest about the cuts that they are making to Sure Start. Instead, they have cut the budget, removed the ring fence, and offloaded the problem and the responsibility on to local authorities up and down the country, some of which face invidious choices in cutting essential services for children—child safeguarding and other important services. That is a terrible position for local authorities to be in, be they Conservative, Liberal, Labour or in coalition. Some other councils are cutting way beyond what would have been the ring fence. They are cutting into funds that were given by the Government for the purposes of Sure Start, siphoning them off and spending them elsewhere.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about cavalier language. At the last election, Harriet Harman, the Member for—

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for correcting me.

At the time, the lady of whom I spoke came to Ipswich and told my constituents that children’s centres would be cut in Ipswich. Since the election, every single centre has stayed open and two more have been added. The right hon. Gentleman is a decent man. Will he apologise on her behalf for having misled people, because I have tried to get her to apologise and she has refused to answer my letters?

[Andy Burnham]

I will happily look at what is happening on the ground in Ipswich. However, there is an important difference that I point out to the hon. Gentleman. It is possible to keep a children’s centre’s lights on and keep a receptionist and a cleaner, but what is going on inside? Is he satisfied that an appropriate level of service is being provided to support the parents of Ipswich? That is the judgment that he has to make. It is not just a case of whether he can come to the House and say that Ipswich is keeping the lights on—it needs to do more than that. Indeed, his own Government have funded it to do more than that. Suffolk, which is the local authority concerned, has had a huge cut of £40 per child in its area. He has to ask his Front Benchers whether that is acceptable for his constituents.

Let me go around the towns and point out what is happening on the ground. Derby, home to a Tory-Liberal coalition, seems like a good place to start. Surely there, if anywhere, people would implement coalition policy to the letter, would they not? Well, perhaps not, because we find that in Derby six children’s centres are threatened with closure. In a BBC news report on 10 March, Kelly Jennings, daughter of the Tory leader of the council, Harvey Jennings, said:

“I voted for the Conservatives because I thought there was going to be more help for the NHS. Now they are cutting that off and locally they are cutting off the Sure Start centres which single parents like myself rely on.”

We have been very pleased to welcome Kelly into the Labour party because she sees that in these tough times only Labour will be the voice of people and stand up for the services on which people depend. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, so let us look at some Tory authorities. We have heard wonderful praise for many local authorities today; let us look at a few others. Are they working hard, like other authorities, to implement the Prime Minister’s clear pre-election pledges?

In Hammersmith and Fulham, we saw the first use of an interesting tactic that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned earlier. Many of its 16 children’s centres were under threat of closure. My hon. Friend went to the council meeting to see it discuss the issue. Then we heard the news that six would become hubs and 10 would remain as spokes. Only when we dig a little deeper do we find that nine of those so-called spokes will receive £25,000 a year. What is that enough to pay for—a receptionist, a caretaker, a bottle of bleach? Is there much more that it would pay for? I do not know, but it could not be very much. At the last Education questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recalled the hospital without patients in “Yes Minister”. This coalition may be remembered for a more modern equivalent —a children’s centre without any children in it. That could be the Secretary of State’s legacy. I do not know about hubs and spokes, but there are certainly plenty of mirrors and smoke when it comes to presenting the facts about Sure Start.