Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, first, these people are not doing these jobs against their will, as they volunteered to do them? Secondly, the quality of CCGs is being assured very closely, and they are receiving a lot of support. But it is a big job because, generally speaking, we want more clinical leaders. They need support in learning management skills in order to do that job well, and across the whole NHS we need to be doing that better.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the training of clinical leaders include training in legal advice about mergers? I was shocked to see a response from Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust showing that they had already spent more than £1.5 million on legal advice about their merger, which has been prevented by the Competition Commission, and that in future they expect to spend £6 million on this scheme. Is it right that our health money should be going on legal advice?

[Mr Hunt]

No, and I am as concerned as the hon. Lady that it is difficult to push through the mergers that local commissioners want to happen. We have to operate within the framework of European law, but we are looking at what we can do to make it easier for these things to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an absolute assurance to that effect. The Department and I are working closely and collaboratively with both the Commissioning Board and the Local Government Association to ensure that we deliver integrated care, which is much the best way of keeping patients out of hospital and maintaining their condition.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

What is the Minister doing to ensure that there are enough GPs in areas with high, rapid population growth?

[Norman Lamb]

There are plans to increase the number of training places for GPs, with the aim of providing more than 3,000 extra places by 2015. That will fully meet the needs to which the hon. Lady has referred.

Social Care Funding

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. All I can say is that we had very strictly to produce a package that is affordable within the current financial constraints. For that reason, we have come up with the package we have. It is the earliest we think we can afford to do this and the lowest cap we think we can afford, but I will of course reflect on his comments.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My question follows on from the previous one about what will happen between now and 2017. Many families are frightened about care costs and the statement has nothing for them. Their loved ones are likely to die in the next four years—2 million people will die before this is implemented. What is the Secretary of State doing additionally for local councils, which are trying to help people in that situation?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady might show a little humility after her Government did nothing about this for 13 years. We are doing something about it, as quickly as we possibly can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Where there are well-functioning local services that have local support, commissioners should recognise that in their decisions, but it is also important to highlight that any reconfiguration of local services has to meet the four tests laid down by the previous Secretary of State: support from GP commissioners; strengthened public and patient engagement; clarity on the clinical evidence base; and support for patient choice. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

One of the ways in which the Government are trying to prevent urgent care and A and E admissions is by holding down the funding for unplanned admissions to 30% above 2009 levels. That is proving very hard in places where many people who arrive for A and E or urgent care are not registered with a GP. What can the Minister do to help with the funding of services in communities where it has proved impossible to reduce A and E admissions?

[Dr Poulter]

The hon. Lady rightly highlights that there are challenges ensuring registration with GPs, particularly in areas with large migrant population groups. In some parts of London, each year as many as one third of patients move and change GP surgeries. This is a big challenge and we are encouraging local hospitals to make sure that people who turn up at A and Es inappropriately subsequently register with a GP.

Induced Abortion

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Crausby. People often say that such debates are very emotional, but it is nice that our debate this morning has been calm. I hope I will be very calm too; my wife always says to me that I must be less emotional when I speak, so I shall give a boring little speech that tries to deal with some facts and surveys. I hope that there will not be a lot of controversy about what I say.

According to the most recent figures for this country, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion. Whatever one’s views about pro-life or right-to-choose issues, I am sure that most people would regret that. In 2011, there were almost 290,000 abortions; that is 572 abortions every day. As we all know, United Kingdom law allows abortion up to 24 weeks, or until full term if the baby is disabled with a “serious handicap” or the mother’s life is threatened. In 2011, only 0.02% of abortions carried out in England and Wales were because of a risk to the mother’s life. Meanwhile, abortions carried out on the grounds of foetal handicap constituted a mere 1.2% of the total number of abortions. Even so, abortions on those grounds are often undertaken even when the handicap in question is undoubtedly curable. Many will recall the noble work of the Church of England vicar, Joanna Jepson, who highlighted that abortions were being carried out on babies with cleft palates on the grounds of foetal handicap.

Since 1929, British law on abortion has, for better or worse, linked the legality of abortion with the viability of the child to survive outside the womb. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 reduced the upper time limit on abortions set by the 1967 Act from 28 weeks to 24. The arguments employed in the parliamentary debates of the time recognised that and highlighted the issue of viability. Since the passing of the 1990 Act, significant improvements have undoubtedly been made to neonatal care, increasing the ability of prematurely born children to survive. Figures from 2005 show that 52 babies born earlier than 24 weeks have survived. In the specialist neonatal unit at London’s University College hospital, five of the seven infants born at 22 weeks between 1996 and 2000 survived, as did nearly half those born at 23 weeks.

Our French and continental neighbours have been mentioned today, and in France, abortion on demand is legal up to only 12 weeks. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), 91% of abortions take place before 12 weeks. I do not think that it is a massive attack on women’s right to choose if we therefore try and focus the debate on late abortions. We are talking about a relatively small number, but we are also discussing human life, and even one human life is important.

In France, abortions are only allowed after 12 weeks if two physicians certify that it is being done to prevent grave, permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or because there is a risk to the pregnant woman’s life, or if the child in question will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognised as incurable. That law was reinforced in 1994, when French law-makers required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centres decide which birth defects are severe enough to allow for abortion after the 12-week limit.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a study of late abortions in Britain? A number of those abortions seem to be as a result of difficulties that women have had getting abortions earlier. If we had abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, as France does but we do not, perhaps the result would be a greater number of earlier abortions in this country.

[Mr Leigh]

We can certainly debate that point. I should have thought that the law is that we have abortion on demand, but if the hon. Lady believes that some women feel they are under pressure not to have abortions before 12 weeks, we can discuss that matter. I thought, however, that we were focusing on late abortions today, which I should have thought we regret all around the Chamber.

A lot of European countries that are viewed as much more liberal than we are have time limits on abortions that are many weeks less than in Great Britain. The UK’s 24-week upper limit is double that of most European countries. Sixteen of 27 EU countries have a gestational limit of 12 weeks or lower; thus attempts to stir a reduction of the upper time limit as controversial have very little ground to stand on when we compare our laws with those of our European neighbours, as we often do in many other areas. A 2005 survey revealed that more than three quarters of women in the United Kingdom are in favour of reducing the time limit on abortions. A 2007 survey, commissioned by Marie Stopes International, found that 65% of GPs would welcome a reduction.

The number of abortions performed in Britain is now four times higher than in 1969, the first full year that abortion was available under the 1967 Act. G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable”.

For those of us who are abortion opponents, like my hon. Friends, our views are known, and they can be dismissed. I hope, however, that even the most fervent supporters of legal abortion recognise that abortion is not desirable, even if they find it excusable. Anything that we can do to prevent late abortions is surely desirable for our country.

Regardless of the obvious moral debate, there is a compelling medical case for wanting to reduce the number of abortions. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recognised that abortion can damage a woman’s mental health. Studies have discovered that women who have had abortions are almost twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems, three times as likely to have major depression, and six times as likely to commit suicide as mothers who do not have an abortion—

Winterbourne View

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I absolutely commend the work of the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers and would be interested to hear more about it. The scandal is that so many people over so many years have been put into institutions and ended up there for years when their care would be much more appropriate for their needs if it took place in their communities through supported living or in a care home. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) mentioned, the extraordinary thing is that we were spending public money—on average, £3,500 per patient in Winterbourne View—to put people at risk of abuse. Often, an appropriate care package costs less than that, and gives the individual the care they need in their own community.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I have raised with the Minister and his predecessor the problem that, often, the responsible authority does not know where people are placed. Families might have died since the placement, and yet there is no national audit of placements of people with learning disabilities, who are often placed a long way from their home. When the Minister returns to the House in November, will he ensure that there is an audit of where people are placed so that we can track them properly?

[Norman Lamb]

I shall certainly consider the hon. Lady’s point and am happy to discuss it further with her. At the end of the day, we must ensure that people in highly vulnerable situations are adequately protected. I want to ensure that all the steps we take are aimed at that goal.

People with Learning Disabilities (Abuse)

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am pleased that the Member in whose constituency Winterbourne View was—I know he has worked very hard on the issue—has intervened, and I am sure that the House will take careful note of what he has said.

Among the abuses that “Panorama” thought important were the following: patients were forced to have showers while fully clothed; mouthwash was poured into a patient’s eyes; a patient had a bucket of cold water poured over her and was forced to sit outside in the cold; patients were dragged along the floor; a patient was repeatedly punched; and a patient was driven to attempt suicide, and was subsequently mocked. That establishes that vulnerable people were tortured for the amusement of men and women guilty of an inhuman and monstrous series of crimes.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The thing that struck me about the Winterbourne View case was that the individual incidents of torture meted out to the people who were being assessed there—my right hon. Friend is right to describe it as torture—was the same torture as was meted out to residents in a care home on the border of my constituency, which, like Winterbourne View, had many residents whose families were miles and miles away. Is my right hon. Friend, like me, shocked to learn that the Department of Health has no central register of out-of-area placements of people with learning disabilities? Will he, in the course of his remarks, ask the Minister if he will ensure that we have national figures about where people are sent, miles away from their families who want to protect them, into institutions such as Winterbourne View?

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On these matters she shows a great humanitarian understanding, and the very point that she raises was raised with me today by families who came down to London from all over the UK because of this debate. My hon. Friend should know that she has considerable support.

The harrowing examples that are given, and there are many more, of depraved activity that some will inflict on the most vulnerable among us are almost impossible to comprehend. My hon. Friend outlines some of the reasons for that. The courts will deal with those responsible, and that is how it should be. Families of the victims may find solace when the guilty are sentenced, but what of those who seek no vengeance? What of those who take the view that such abuse should never have happened and want to know why it did happen? It is fair to say that we all want to know who was responsible for presiding over this human crisis. How far and how wide does culpability spread?

We cannot erase the evidence of abuse, where and when it happened. We cannot undo the pain, the suffering and humiliating experience endured by people with learning disabilities, and we most certainly cannot leave it to the monolithic bureaucratic machine to ensure that such abuses never occur again. We have completely and unmistakably failed to protect adults in many aspects of their character where we see that their mental capacity is that of a child.

Winterbourne View was operated by a company called Castlebeck Care Ltd, which charged the public purse an average of £3,500 per patient per week for the services that it provided. For that amount of money, a person could stay in the Ritz hotel. For that amount of money, Castlebeck Care Ltd saw a turnover of £3.7 million per year from Winterbourne View. We should know what that money was spent on. We do not know, but the Department of Health should be able to solicit this information and put it into the public domain—again, a point that the parents whom I met today made loudly and clearly. It is only then that a proper, informed judgment can be made of whether the reason for being of those who are providing such services is the pursuit of profit or patient care.

As I said, I met today families who related their own experience. What they told me is that questions and challenges must be addressed to local councils and local health authorities, which have a crucial role. The Improving Health and Lives organisation published a report written by Professor Emerson of Lancaster university, which analysed the Care Quality Commission’s investigations into 150 care providers. Professor Emerson established that only one in seven patients were being supported in an environment that was fully compliant with statutory regulations. He also established that units operated directly by the NHS were more likely to be compliant than those that were out to make a profit. Half the units investigated did not meet those important statutory levels of care.

The Care Quality Commission knew exactly what was going on. Reading through the material, it is impossible not to conclude that its inaction was simply shocking. It presided over the shambolic and chaotic delivery of vital care services. It was appalling when not even lip service was paid to the adherence to statutory regulations or the basic minimum levels of care. Prior to the abuses at Winterbourne View, there were months and months when the commission carried out no inspections at all. Its self-described “light-touch regulation” is part of the reason these abuses occurred. Winterbourne View was inspected only once every two years in the absence of any complaints. Clearly, that is profoundly unacceptable. The commission was also affected by the coalition Government’s civil service recruitment freeze, which resulted in it having fewer inspectors than it clearly required.

Inspectors must increase the pressure in care units that are underperforming. Inspections must occur more regularly and without warning. There must be stiffer penalties for care providers for non-compliance with their statutory obligations. The commission must be relentless when it comes to investigating care providers that cause concern. Of course, as we all know, Winterbourne View was closed down, but how many people know that Castlebeck Care Ltd had two other units closed down as a result of serious concerns about the level of care? The “Panorama” documentary not only exposed Winterbourne View; it laid bare the unbelievable ineptitude of the commission, which was utterly incapable of taking action in all three units before the scandal was exposed. In my view, the new mantra should be, “Inspections will occur anywhere at any time and without prior notice.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and anticipates what I am about to say. The Department’s guidance is clear. People should be supported to live in the community, wherever possible, and only in strictly limited cases should assessment and treatment centres be used. Nowhere in policy or guidance is there justification for long-stay assessment and treatment hospitals. Indeed, the CQC found length of stay ranging from anything between six weeks and 17 years, with five to seven years not uncommon.

The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised the issue of data during her intervention on the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. I agree that we need to improve data collection so that we have a clearer picture of what is going on. The painstaking work of the serious case review, Department of Health officials and others to create a clear picture of the system begs questions about the adequacy of data collection for many years.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman last week—although, having been a Minister, I suspect that he has not seen my letter—asking him to conduct an audit of out-of-area placements of vulnerable people and to publish the figures on people who are placed a long way away from home. Will he commit tonight to do that?

[Paul Burstow]

What I will rightly do—having been a Minister, the hon. Lady will understand this—is give her the justice of reading her letter and considering properly what she has asked. There is merit in what she has said. There is certainly merit in ensuring that those who commission such services are collecting that information so that they have a clear picture of those who are being placed out of area.

I am more interested in the more fundamental question of the appropriateness of something that is outside of policy becoming a practice and being established as an ongoing practice. My point is that we need to look critically at the system that has allowed out-of-area placement to grow to the extent that it has, which has allowed such abuse to go unnoticed in some places for too long. There is no place for such long-stay institutions detaining vulnerable people far away from home.

Providers, commissioners, regulators and individual professionals all have a responsibility—a duty of care to those on whose behalf they commission services. Last year, in the wake of Winterbourne View, the CQC conducted 150 inspections of other services for people with learning disabilities. It adopted new ways of working involving experts both by profession and experience. Although the CQC found no other cases of abuse like those exposed at Winterbourne View, it is disturbing that half of the services that the CQC inspected revealed evidence of poor quality care that was failing to meet essential care and safeguarding standards. Everyone who is involved across the NHS and social care has a vital part to play in driving up standards.

As I have said, the Department’s guidance has been and remains clear. The interim report sets out clearly the elements of the model of care that we expect to see commissioned. However, that is not always happening on the ground. Those commissioning, or in too many cases, spot purchasing, long-stay assessment and treatment services need to look carefully at what they are doing. Indeed, I can tell the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that the chief executive of the NHS Commissioning Board and the Department’s director-general of social care wrote to chief executives and chairs of all NHS bodies and local authorities to highlight the interim report and reinforce their responsibility to improve commissioning.

When I published the interim report in June, I set out five objectives for improving services for people with learning disabilities and behaviour that challenges. Those objectives underpin the 14 national actions set out in the report to improve care and support for people with learning disabilities or autism and behaviours that challenge. Those actions include promoting open access for families and visitors and ensuring that people are involved in reviewing the care that they receive; encouraging the CQC to carry out unannounced inspections at any time of the day and week; working with the CQC and the Department for Education to promote best practice and positive behavioural support and ensure that physical restraint is only ever a last resort, and certainly not a tool of choice as it clearly was at Winterbourne View; improving integration between the NHS and social care by setting up health and wellbeing boards to agree joined-up ways of improving services; and getting a range of national organisations, including the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Royal College of General Practitioners and other royal colleges, the NHS Confederation and the NHS Commissioning Board, to sign up to a concordant setting out the actions that each will be committed to taking forward to deliver the right care for people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour.

One final action that I commend to the House is our work with the NHS Commissioning Board to improve the use of NHS contracts. When we read the serious case review, it is shocking to see how few NHS organisations used NHS contracts to contract their services. They used Castlebeck’s own contract, which was a poor document. The serious case review is just part of what we need to examine. There is also the NHS review of commissioning that was conducted by the South West strategic health authority, which sets out a number of other actions that are being taken to address failings.

I made it clear when we published the interim report that I would very much welcome feedback on it to ensure that the final report, and the action plan that we will publish alongside it, would be as robust as possible and deliver what Members of all parties wanted. I therefore welcome the report by Mencap and the Challenging Behaviour Foundation. As part of our response, we will consider the role of commissioners and how we can support them in the new health and care system.

In addition to the work that my Department is doing directly in response to Winterbourne View, we are taking a number of other steps to improve the care and support system. For example, we are introducing the first ever code of conduct and national minimum training standards for health care and adult social care support workers. That goes to a point that was made in interventions. That work is being taken forward by Skills for Care and Skills for Health and will ensure, for the first time, that employers and people who provide care understand their responsibilities and roles in delivering high-quality and acceptable care to people who need it.

In July, when we published the White Paper on care and support, we set out plans for measures to increase the availability of appropriately skilled care workers, including by expanding the number of care apprenticeships. The White Paper also made the case for strengthening safeguarding, which is what this debate is fundamentally all about. That is a key priority for the Government.

We are committed to preventing, and reducing the risk of, significant harm to adults in vulnerable situations, while supporting individuals to maintain control over their own lives and to make informed choices without coercion. That is why the draft Care and Support Bill sets out a new statutory framework for adult safeguarding to address some of the defects that have been identified, and key responsibilities for local authorities and their partners in the NHS and the police. It will ensure that safeguarding adults boards exist everywhere in England. The Bill will place all that on a statutory footing for the first time.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill for securing the debate. In learning the lessons from Winterbourne View, I am determined to ensure that the voices of people with learning disabilities and of families are right at the heart of what we do.

The National Forum of People with Learning Disabilities and the National Valuing Families Forum sit on the programme board that I chair, which will oversee progress on the action plan. Both have key roles to play locally and nationally in driving change.

Let me end by making it clear that the Government’s approach to people with learning disabilities is grounded in fundamental principles of human rights, independence, inclusion and choice. There can be no excuses. There is no tolerance of those who abuse disabled people.

The right hon. Gentleman has done the House a service by bringing these matters to it tonight. I look forward to coming back to the House later this year with the final report setting out the actions that the Government will take to stamp out abuse.

Question put and agreed to.

Health and Social Care Bill

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith]

I believe I do understand the difference between the different types of risk register, but if we simply stand still and have inertia in our health service, it will become less relevant.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) accused members of my party of being chancers. I prefer to consider us as reformers, and only if we embrace reform will we be able to provide a better NHS.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

One reform that I imagine the hon. Gentleman will welcome is the Chancellor’s proposal, which we gather we will learn about tomorrow, that every taxpayer can find out where their taxes go. As the taxpayers have paid for the compiling of the risk register, why should they and we not be able to read it?

[Henry Smith]

I am a great supporter of transparency across all our public services, and the people of this country thirst for transparency about how their hard-earned money is spent.

The Health and Social Care Bill provides for the democratisation of the national health service. The experience of the NHS in my constituency over the past decade was the sad loss of the maternity department at Crawley hospital, followed four years later by the closure of its accident and emergency department. One reason why those two units and others were transferred from my constituents’ local hospital was that decisions about the national health service were made nowhere near where they took effect.

The Bill will allow local clinicians, in conjunction with their patients—and, I might add, with democratically elected local government—to have a much greater say in how the NHS is delivered and greater scrutiny of it. We will have a far more responsive health service. It has been almost decades since health decisions in Crawley were made by clinicians, patients and elected councillors. By repatriating many decisions, we will have a more transparent and responsive health service.

It was a great privilege to be able to open the new digital mammography unit at Crawley hospital a few weeks ago. That is a classic example of a health service that develops in line with technology and with the changing needs of our population. I am confident that the Bill will give local clinicians, patients and democratically elected local representatives the tools to provide a far safer and more relevant national health service to the people of my constituency and constituencies up and down the country.

In conclusion, after 14 months of careful consideration of the Bill, it is time we get on with the reform of the national health service, which goes hand in hand with the increased investment in it that the Government have guaranteed at least to the end of this Parliament. I might add that that is in stark contrast to what is happening in Wales, where Labour is in control of the NHS and where budgets have been cut. The people of Wales are feeling the result. I want to resist that happening to patients in England and therefore believe that it is time to get on and pass this legislation for the good of our NHS.

Breast Implants

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a number of important and perceptive points. It is, and will continue to be, one aspect of NHS advice that psychological assessment can form an important part in the management of patients referred for low-priority procedures, including cosmetic surgery. However, although we will look at cosmetic interventions and their regulation more widely, we must recognise that the issue in this instance related to what was a criminal act—seeking to adulterate the material in the implants. Many private providers were using what they regarded as properly certified implants for a perfectly proper procedure. To that extent, they were not engaging in any improper behaviour. However, they have legal and moral obligations to their patients, and I am asking them to discharge those obligations.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

It saddens me that, despite previous reports recommending more effective regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry, it has taken this crisis, causing so much distress to so many women, for the issue to be taken seriously. I am nevertheless glad that it is being taken seriously. Will the Secretary of State consider ensuring that people seeking cosmetic procedures must have independent counselling and advice from a body that will not make a profit from that procedure, and whose whole concern is the health of the patient?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that suggestion, and I will ask Sir Bruce’s group to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, in that what the last Government said happened did not happen: such medicines were not available, and there was a postcode lottery in accessing many of them. That, among other reasons, is why the chief executive of the NHS published his report, which will introduce the NICE compliance strategy. We will require all NICE technology appraisals to be incorporated automatically in the local drug formularies, and the NICE implementation collaboration will support the prompt implementation of NICE guidance.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Last week in my constituency, a community pharmacist refused to issue a blind patient with dosage packs unless they paid an additional fee. What redress will such patients have in the newly reorganised NHS regarding actions such as this by community pharmacists, which in my view are against the Disability Discrimination Act?

[Mr Lansley]

I should be grateful if the hon. Lady wrote to me about that case and gave me the opportunity to look at it, which I would be pleased to do. From my point of view, we do not countenance such requirements, through charging, denying patients access to any NHS treatment.