Penrose Inquiry

Debate between Jane Ellison and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I think the Prime Minister was clear yesterday when he told the House that returning to this important matter and these tragic events was a priority. The reason we say it is an interim response is that the Prime Minister and this Government feel that a more substantive response will need to be given in the next Parliament. Of course my feeling is that we need to return to this important subject and respond more substantively across a wide range of issues. I am well aware of the high concern among sufferers about the way in which the current financial assistance schemes work, and they will need to be considered in a great deal more detail.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I met a hepatitis C nurse and support worker in Bristol, and they urged not only speedier diagnosis but earlier treatment for people who are infected, before they develop serious liver problems. Will the Minister take that thought back to her Department?

[Jane Ellison]

Of course. In my response to the Backbench business debate, I gave Members a sense of how to represent constituents as regards the latest NHS treatments. The latest treatments available for hepatitis C are of a different order of effectiveness and have many fewer side-effects than the older treatments and it is important that anyone affected is seen by a hepatologist and referred appropriately. NICE and the NHS are currently considering the new treatments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effects of trends in food prices on public health.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

The Government monitor trends in food prices. We are obviously aware that for some families money is tight, but that is one of the reasons why in my area—public health—we are investing in programmes such as Change4Life. Public Health England has done a great job with Change4Life. Since its launch, more than 1.9 million families have joined, and the Meal Mixer app, for example, has been downloaded more than 1 million times and contains hundreds of quick, healthy and affordable family recipes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that response. Some of the things that she mentioned involve people being in a position to make choices about the food that they buy, and we know the extent of food poverty is such that many people do not have the luxury of being able to do that. Is the Minister aware of the Trussell Trust and Oxfam report, which warns that people in food poverty are buying lower quality food and less food overall, giving rise to a real problem of malnutrition in children?

[Jane Ellison]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady welcomes the news this morning that food price inflation is at an annual rate of 0%, so food prices are at the same level as last year. On the issue that she raises, that is exactly why programmes such as Change4Life are important. It is also important that we see other measures across government. The school food plan is important for its emphasis on nutrition, as are free school meals and the Healthy Start programme. The Government are doing lots of things to try to make it easier for less well-off families to eat healthily.

Cystic Fibrosis

Debate between Jane Ellison and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this debate. She made a wide-ranging speech demonstrating a very deep knowledge of this subject. She alluded to her own family connection to this condition. Obviously, I convey my best wishes to her constituents, particularly to her family and especially to her niece, who is, as she described, suffering from the condition.

I commend the hon. Lady’s recent achievement in raising funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. That is an excellent achievement for an excellent charity; she is right to be generous in paying tribute to it. I am sure she will be interested to know that in recent weeks many Members of Parliament have contacted me in support of the trust’s current campaign on behalf of the 10,000 or so people in the UK who battle with the everyday challenge, which she so eloquently described, of living with cystic fibrosis.

Let me take this opportunity, as I like to do, to pay tribute to those who work in our NHS and their dedication, determination and commitment to provide a first-class care service to all patients, not least CF patients. I pay tribute to them for their efforts, all the time, on behalf of all of us and all our constituents.

Let me first speak more generally about organ transplants and the challenges of organ transplantation. In the UK, the need for an organ is greater than the number of donor organs available. About 8,000 people are on the national transplant list waiting for a transplant that will save their lives or significantly improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, too many people wait too long for a suitable organ to be donated. About 1,000 people a year die waiting—about three adults or children every day. That applies to organs in general. Many others lose their lives before they even get on the transplant list. As of 3 April this year, 75 people with cystic fibrosis were waiting for a lung transplant. About 50 cystic fibrosis patients receive a transplant each year, but unfortunately about 20 patients die each year on the transplant list. We can see the clear challenge to meet that need and assist those people.

This means that there has to be a system to ensure that patients are treated equitably and that donated organs are allocated in a fair and unbiased way based on the patient’s clinical need and the importance of achieving the closest possible match between donor and recipient. A number of factors are involved. The rules for allocating organs are drawn up by the medical profession in consultation with other health professionals, specialist solid organ advisory groups, and health administrations. Factors such as the blood group, tissue type, and age and size of the donor and the recipient are taken into account to direct the allocation of the organ and identify the best-matched patient or, alternatively, the transplant unit to which the organ is to be offered.

The Cystic Fibrosis Trust report “Hope for all”, published on 10 March this year, makes a number of recommendations focusing on three key aspects: increasing the number of organs donated for transplantation; making sure that we make best use of the donated organs; and making sure that patients are fully involved in decisions about their care. We continue to invest in the donation programme to optimise transplantation in the UK. In the five years between April 2008 and April 2013, donation rates rose by 50.3% and transplant rates rose by 30%. That is a record of good and significant progress in recent years. I pay tribute to NHSBT for the work it has done in this regard, alongside other health professionals and the charities. Encouragingly, donor and transplant rates continue to rise, and we see that pattern this year as well. However, we know we can do more to match the successful donation programmes in some other countries —as the hon. Lady said, there are other countries with better records—and to give more people the opportunity of a transplant.

As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members may know, a new seven-year UK-wide organ donation and transplantation strategy, “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020”, was published in July last year. The strategy expressed the desire to make the UK system comparable with the best in the world. Within that, it aims for a rate of consent—the hon. Lady specifically talked about consent rates—of above 80%; it is currently 55%. Increasingly, consent is the most important strategic aim—interestingly, more so than donation. Spain achieved a consent rate of 84% in 2011—a remarkable achievement. We know that we have particular challenges in relation to consent rates in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, which I have discussed at length with NHSBT and which hon. Members are aware of. I know of hon. Members not present here today who have done specific work in some of their local black and minority ethnic communities to raise awareness on this point. I would like to see us do more of that and use parliamentarians to do so.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is perhaps remiss of me not to have mentioned in my speech the fact that in the past year Bristol has had its first Muslim lord mayor who, during his year as lord mayor, chose to focus on encouraging blood and organ donation from the BME communities. As his term of office is almost up, I ought to take this opportunity to congratulate Councillor Faruk Choudhury on that effort.

[Jane Ellison]

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the lord mayor. That is exactly the sort of local leadership that can help. One of the big pluses of the devolution of public health to local government is that we see such leadership from people who know their community best and understand the diversity in their locality. I am keen to encourage that. Only recently we celebrated examples in other areas, where we saw that specific leadership in some communities where health outcomes were not as good as they could be. We are always looking for such opportunities, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to highlight local leadership in that regard.

Our focus in the strategy is initially on increasing consent rates. We want people to support transplantation. We can all imagine that families are being asked to agree donation at probably one of the worst times in their life, but many families find that they get comfort from knowing they have helped others to live. We will keep a close eye on what happens in Wales following the changes there, to which the hon. Lady alluded. NHSBT also keeps international experience under careful review. I mentioned the good success rates in Spain, for example.

We need to make sure that we make the best use of the donated organs. Currently donor lungs are procured by a retrieval team and allocated to the transplant centre on a zonal basis, based on the location of the donor. The transplant team at the centre will decide whether or not to accept the lungs and will select the most appropriate recipient.

The trust’s report recommends the implementation of a national lung allocation system whereby donor lungs are given to the most urgent patients, regardless of where they live.

This is something that NHSBT’s cardiothoracic organs advisory group, which includes both lung clinicians and lay membership, will be considering very shortly, and in particular whether we should introduce a national lung allocation scheme for people who need a lung transplant urgently, with all remaining donor lungs continuing to be allocated on a zonal basis. The advisory group’s recommendations will then be considered by NHSBT’s transplant policy review committee, and if a change of allocation procedures is agreed, it will be implemented as soon as the governance arrangements can be put in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the public health responsibility deal on the products and marketing practices of the fast-food industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

We appreciate the contribution that the fast-food sector is making to the responsibility deal. More than 5,000 fast-food restaurants have labelled calories clearly, which means that more than 70% of high street fast food and takeaway meals are labelled. There is always more to do and we are keen to take this forward. Progress has been made through voluntary responsibility deals with industry.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I welcome the Minister to her new post. I do not suppose she has yet had time to look at the authoritative international study of asthma and allergies in childhood, which shows a clear link between the consumption of fast food and asthma and allergies. The Government, however, have refused to discuss that with the public health responsibility partners. When will the Government start to take public health seriously and hold companies to account?

[Jane Ellison]

The idea that the Government do not take responsibility for public health seriously is ridiculous. Public health will never be improved just from Whitehall. The work has to be done together, among local government—which is keen and has been given the tools and resources—central Government, business and industry. Such long-term partnership working to improve the public’s health can only be done together. I will look at the hon. Lady’s specific point, but I reject the idea that the Government are not taking this issue seriously—far from it.

Shaker Aamer

Debate between Jane Ellison and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

All hon. Members in this Chamber, with the exception perhaps of the Minister, can only speculate about the reasons why Mr Aamer has not been released. I hope that the Minister will tell us all that he can about the discussions that have taken place about the reasons given for his continued detention.

I do not think that the suggestion that Mr Aamer would be likely to be involved in terrorism activities, or would in any way be a danger to the public if he returned to Britain, holds water. As has been said, the other people who have returned to this country have not been involved in such activity. As far as I know, that has not been alleged.

[Jane Ellison]

As I said in my speech—I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees—whatever might be revealed, it will always come out in the end, because in free societies it does. Our institutions are robust enough. Many hon. Members voted to go to war on what turned out to be a false precept under the last Government. It turned out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, yet our democracy has survived. Our institutions might be bloodied, but they are unbowed. Does the hon. Lady agree that, whatever might come out, we will survive it and be better as a result?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. The bottom line is that we are fundamentally opposed to any collusion or complicity in torture or mistreatment. It would be wrong if British or American forces were involved in any such activities. Mistreating somebody who might expose such activities in a world where we are upholding human rights law must be wrong. If such activities did occur, they need to be flushed out into the open.

Obviously, there is always the underlying security issue. The United States has the right to defend its citizens, and we have the right to defend ours, against the threat of terrorism. That sometimes means that things cannot always be as transparent—as open—as we would like them to be. However, if there is any suggestion that we are not upholding the international laws that we claim to hold dear, that is a serious matter and we cannot hide behind that.

As has been said, this debate is so urgent because Mr Aamer has now been on hunger strike for more than 70 days and experts warn that he is now beyond the point of

“irreversible cognitive impairment and psychological damage”.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned reports that he is suffering with arthritis, asthma, prostate and kidney problems and severe backache. It is said that he can no longer read and is dizzy, but is reluctant to call the guards when he falls because of their previous treatment of him. Worryingly, it is claimed he is being denied water or has to endure a forcible cell extraction first—we have heard about that already—and there are other reports of hunger strikers being given only dirty water. According to his lawyers, Mr Aamer’s knee and back braces have been taken away, as has the blanket that he needed for his rheumatism. Papers recently filed with US courts cited “deliberate indifference” to detainees’ medical needs. Even if there were valid reasons for continuing to hold Mr Aamer in Guantanamo Bay, I think that all hon. Members would agree that he ought to be treated with respect and in accordance with the normal processes that we would expect to apply to anybody held in a prison—and not to be subject to this kind of treatment.

This is not Mr Aamer’s first hunger strike. He allegedly initiated a strike in 2005, following which he was punished with solitary confinement for 360 days. I understand that the US authorities deny the claims that Mr Aamer has been held in solitary confinement for three years. Again, we are not in a position to know whether that is so.

It is understood that 84 Guantanamo detainees are on hunger strike and five are being treated in hospital. There were reports of clashes just over a week ago, when the guards allegedly tried to end the hunger strike. It is difficult to verify conflicting reports, but it has been said that 16 people are being force-fed, in breach of the 1975 World Medical Association declaration of Tokyo, the guidelines for physicians concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in relation to detention and imprisonment.

It is on the record that the Government have repeatedly called on the Obama Administration to return Mr Aamer to the UK and that must remain the pressing goal, but will the Minister say what representations have been made regarding his treatment during his detention, and the conduct of the Guantanamo guards towards the other 165 detainees? Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sought information on how long and under what circumstances Mr Aamer has been held in solitary confinement? Given the grave concerns about Mr Aamer’s health, what discussions have the UK and US had on medical facilities at Guantanamo Bay; and will the FCO seek assurances that Mr Aamer is receiving the medical care he needs? What efforts have been made to ensure that Mr Aamer is, at the very least, able to speak to his lawyers?

Given the clear statements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that the USA is in breach of international law, have the Government in recent months discussed the USA’s obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights, or encouraged co-operation with UN special rapporteurs? Similarly, has the Minister raised the right to a fair trial or any objections to the military commission system?

It has been suggested that the latest hunger strike followed the reassignment of Dan Fried, President Obama’s special envoy, tasked with transferring prisoners and fulfilling the pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. Have the Government discussed the implications of that with the Obama Administration, and does the Minister still think there is the political will, within the White House at least, to eventually close the centre?

Congress and the National Defence Authorisation Act have been identified as the greater obstacles. Although the NDAA essentially precluded any transfers from Guantanamo Bay, when its provisions were renewed in 2012, I understand that a degree of flexibility was introduced for the Secretary of Defence, which the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned. Despite this, there were no releases last year. Can the Minister tell us more about the implications of the Act, as renewed in 2012, for Mr Aamer and the other detainees, and whether the Secretary of Defence is able to exercise such discretion? Have the Government raised this matter with the White House, the Department of Defence and representatives from Congress?

The question remains why, despite being cleared for release some six years ago, Mr Aamer remains in Guantamo Bay. Can the Minister say whether, in either 2007 or 2009, Mr Aamer’s release depended on any conditions being met? For example, was he cleared to return home to his family in Battersea? We have heard that he may only have been cleared to return to Saudi Arabia. If that is the case, does the Minister share our concern that somebody with indefinite leave to remain in this country, who has a family in the UK, is married to a British citizen, has four children who are British citizens, and has not been convicted of a crime, should be sent to Saudi Arabia, about whose human rights record we have grave concerns, and which he left when he was only 17 years old?

The US authorities may dispute some of the reports emanating from Guantanamo Bay, but it seems beyond doubt that the latest hunger strike, which is seemingly one of the most serious, is a sign of the increasing desperation of detainees and perhaps a fear that the remaining 166, out of the 779 who have been held there over the years, have been completely forgotten. Can the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office remains determined to secure the release of the last remaining British resident and, more generally, to press for the closure of Guantanamo Bay? Does he share our concern, which many Members have expressed in their speeches and interventions today, that its continued existence undermines the USA’s ability to promote human rights around the world and, given that the USA is such a close ally and friend of the UK, risks undermining our credibility on international human rights as well?