Care for the Elderly (Kent)

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on securing this debate on an issue that is clearly important not only for Dover and Dartford but for the whole of Kent.

I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking about the Manorbrooke and The Limes care homes, which are the two affected in my constituency, because the principles that affect them are similar to those that affect homes around the entire county. I have visited both care homes and have met the staff and residents. They are two types of care home and offer two distinct services to the residents of Dartford.

First, The Limes is a care and day centre that offers an almost unique service in Kent. Many of my constituents have benefited over a considerable number of years from the service it provides because it allows patients who would otherwise need to remain in hospital to be discharged into its care, thereby relieving pressure on the local hospital in Dartford, Darent Valley hospital. It had to deal recently with extra pressure after the A&E department at nearby Queen Mary’s hospital closed its doors, and I fear that the closure of The Limes can only add to the pressure on it. Patients who might otherwise have been discharged to The Limes will either have to remain at Darent Valley hospital or find alternative care home provision. Clearly, that provision will be harder to find if care homes are closed around the county.

The “Save The Limes” campaign group has been passionate in standing up for the care home, and none more so than Laura Whitehead and Karen Baldwin, who I am pleased are engaged enough with the campaign to make the trip to Westminster for the debate my hon. Friend secured. They have made it clear that it would be a huge mistake to close The Limes. It has been claimed that it is very expensive to run, and the line that Kent county council has used time and time again is that it costs an inordinate amount of money, but in my experience the staff have not been given the opportunity to reduce the costs of care provision at the home. They certainly have not shown any reluctance or unwillingness to modernise or introduce efficiency savings. They simply have not had the chance to show that they can make savings.

The situation for Manorbrooke is similar. It is a residential care home earmarked for closure by Kent county council. The plan is for it to be demolished and a more modern facility built on the same site in the manner described by my hon. Friend. It would mean the residents having to leave their home at Manorbrooke, move elsewhere and then move back to Manorbrooke a couple of years later once the building work is complete. That would mean three different homes in two years. Surely, our elderly deserve better. Yes, the homes will be larger, with gymnasiums and even internet cafés, but we are talking about people’s homes, and that goes to the heart of the debate. No one in this Chamber or Palace would want their home taken from them, and yet that is precisely what is happening in care homes across Kent. The residents in Manorbrooke and The Limes are happy where they are—they are very happy—and they want to stay there.

Yvette Knight, who is in Strangers Gallery, has worked extremely hard to keep the care home open, and has approached the issue with a dignified and commendable attitude; as has the local county councillor, Penny Cole, who has worked tirelessly on this issue. Those who support The Limes and Manorbrooke are enormously frustrated by the whole closure programme. Surely, land could be purchased to build a new care home before the closure of the existing home takes place. One home in Kent could have been closed for that to happen, and the money used to purchase land as part of a rolling programme. That would have prevented anyone from losing their home and having to go elsewhere while other homes were built. I hope that even at this late stage, the homes can be saved and an alternative solution found by the county council, if necessary with support from central Government. I understand what the county council is trying to achieve, but I feel that the planned process of closure is wrong—very wrong. A rethink is needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I know that he plays an active part in the all-party muscular dystrophy group. He was involved in ensuring that we had a report from that body on access to specialist neuromuscular care—the Walton report, an important report that mapped out many of the deficiencies in the current service. I would be happy to meet him and his friends to discuss the matter further.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of IVF treatment across the country.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Many primary care trusts have made good progress towards meeting NICE guidance recommendations on the provision of IVF treatment. However, I am aware that a small number of PCTs with historical funding problems have temporarily suspended local NHS provision of IVF services. I have already expressed my concerns about that approach. I expect all PCTs to have regard to the current NICE guidance and to recognise fully the significant distress and impact that infertility has on people’s lives.

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that Robert Edwards, the British inventor of IVF treatment, is due to receive the Nobel prize this week for his work. I am sure that Professor Edwards would be dismayed that PCTs have suspended their IVF provision, so would my right hon. Friend join me in urging those PCTs that have taken that step to reconsider their decision on this important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am indeed aware of that, not least because the Bourn Hall clinic, where Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe did their groundbreaking work, is in my constituency. As a former vice-chair of the all-party infertility group, I feel strongly that the reason the NICE guidance was written as it was, way back in 2004, was to recognise both the distress and the extent of the difficulties that couples face, and the need for them to be assured not only of good-quality investigation, but of good quality follow-up provision in fertility services throughout the NHS. I urge PCTs to have regard to the NICE guidance in their commissioning decisions.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not profess to have any high degree of expertise. I was approached by a couple of my constituents, who hit me with what can be described only as a moral sledgehammer. They movingly recounted profound stories of their youth and their lost childhoods, which others have mentioned, and of their inability to form full relationships with loved ones. Some victims have had to keep their condition secret owing to a fear of being shunned by people who have a naive attitude towards HIV. The heartbreaking accounts are seemingly endless. Very often, sufferers get into the habit of not telling friends and even relatives, and now find it impossible to divulge the truth. Many victims were children. Some never made it to adulthood.

We fight and argue in this Chamber over a range of issues, but we would struggle to find a more poignant debate than this. The contracting of HIV through blood transfusions is one of the most profound, disturbing and dreadful episodes in 20th century health treatment. According to my calculations, on average, one person a week has died as a result of being infected with HIV. Those who survive do so only because of a cocktail of drugs that keeps them hanging on to life. That treatment has been described as being on low-dose chemotherapy for the rest of one’s life.

An additional difficulty is that victims must cope with their inability to obtain life insurance—Opposition Members have mentioned that—and they also have difficulty with travel insurance and medicals. I therefore welcome the terms of reference for the review. Surely some help can be offered to the remaining survivors. I use the term “survivor” deliberately, because that is exactly what the remaining sufferers are.

A further tragedy is the fact that some sufferers were not told of their condition even when it was known by others, leading to the infection of partners. On other occasions, it was felt unnecessary to engage with sufferers as they were not expected to live very long anyway. The treatment that is available today for HIV sufferers was not envisaged in the 1980s, so it was believed that victims had a life expectancy of about five years. Thankfully, that has not been the case in many instances. Understandably, some who were told that they had only five years to live went out and spent their financial award pretty quickly, and enjoyed life to the full without considering investing for the future. Many such victims have consequently been left financially short.

We are familiar with the root cause of the infection: blood was imported for transfusion when the UK was not self-sufficient. Perhaps we need to look further into that. Safeguards that should have been implemented in both the UK and the US were not. Indeed, it appears that the UK was slow to act on minimising the chances of haemophiliacs contracting HIV. Clearly, mistakes were made, and they must be recognised.

More important than embarking on a witch hunt is deciding where we go from here. How can we achieve insurance for sufferers and support those who need it most? Infection from tainted blood was indiscriminate. Young and old, haemophiliacs and those who underwent operations were not spared. Nobody was spared.

The situation affects not only male haemophiliacs; some female cases have been reported. It is very much a matter of regret that the issue of adequate compensation was not tackled some time ago. I suspect that the sheer sums of money are part of the reason why the cause was not picked up by the previous Government. I look to this Government to do what they can to make the situation for sufferers and their families easier.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Like me, my hon. Friend has constituents who are affected by this issue. Does he agree that although it is important to get the numbers and the money right, there is an important principle at stake too? From this debate, it would appear that the House wholeheartedly supports that principle.

[Gareth Johnson]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. A range of principles is at issue and we need to ensure that people who are affected by this tragedy are properly looked after as best the Government can achieve. We live in times of austerity, and there is a limit on what the Government can do, but it is incumbent on them to do all that they reasonably and practically can to help sufferers.