Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman’s question in full, but I would be happy to meet him afterwards to talk about the matter in more detail.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

Since the last Health questions, we have announced 20 hospital upgrades; 40 new hospitals; £200 million for cancer diagnosis kit; £250 million for the NHSX artificial intelligence lab; a social prescribing academy, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey); the launch of the “Every Mind Matters” public mental health campaign; a landmark agreement so that cystic fibrosis drugs, including Orkambi, can be available on the NHS; and the firm commitment from the Prime Minister that in any trade talks after Brexit, the NHS is—and always will be—off the table.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There were 1.2 million hospital admissions related to alcohol consumption in England in 2017-18—3% up on the previous year. Hospital admissions due to alcohol-related liver disease have increased by 43% in the last 10 years, and alcohol problems now cost the NHS an estimated £3.5 billion every year in England alone. Why have the Government not properly recognised the enormous and growing scale of the country’s alcohol-related health problems, and why have they failed to bring forward serious and effective measures to address them?

[Matt Hancock]

The prevention Green Paper that we published in the summer specifically addresses what is needed. The effort that we put into supporting those who are hospitalised through their abuse of alcohol needs to be enhanced, and there is an enormous amount of effort under way to make that happen.

The National Health Service

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.

With the rising number of patients—particularly frail elderly people—the cost of treatments increasing, and also, very importantly, the severe lack of funding, our much loved health service is under truly severe pressure. I pay tribute to NHS staff for the vital work they do despite that enormous pressure. I would very much like to record my appreciation for them tonight.

I will address three issues: first, the scale of the challenge in health; secondly, the Government’s damaging approach; and thirdly, the need for real change. It is no exaggeration to say that the scale of the challenge facing our health service is quite simply enormous. This is partly because of the considerable changes taking place as our population gets older and people live longer. It is a very good thing that life expectancy is increasing, and we are all obviously grateful for that. However, a growing number of frail older people need appropriate care and support, and that care must be properly funded. In addition, medical science is advancing very rapidly, offering wonderful new and life-changing treatments, but again, those new treatments need to be supported by the necessary level of funding.

There are additional local challenges in some parts of the country. For example, in my constituency of Reading East we face particularly intense pressure in terms of staff recruitment and retention because of the high cost of housing and as more people move into our part of the Thames valley. NHS staff in our area face higher than average living costs—arguably similar to costs for people living in outer London, but with no London weighting. I want to return to that important point about resources.

Secondly, I am afraid that the Government are quite simply failing to respond to the scale of the challenge. Ministers have offered warm words, but fundamentally, they are failing to provide the necessary investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is right when he talks about the crisis in the NHS and the fact that every single measure of NHS performance is going the wrong way. For example, in my seat, A&E waits have risen dramatically—and they are A&E waits of more than 12 hours; I am not even going into waits that breached the four-hour target. In the Royal Berkshire Hospital, those waits increased by around five times in one year, between 2016-17 and 2017-18, which are the latest recorded figures. Conveniently for the Government, Ministers have decided to move the target rather than measure it.

We have also lost two GP surgeries, which is the tip of a very big iceberg in primary care in our area and across the country. These are surgeries where GPs are retiring, and there is a lack of new GPs coming on stream to replace them. In one case, local residents have had to move to a GP surgery in a different county, several miles away. Others have had to move to surgeries across our town. For frail, elderly people, that can involve a change of bus routes, difficulties in getting to see their GP and considerable additional problems in accessing primary care.

On top of that, many other services are under enormous pressure. To make things even worse, there is a deeply damaging privatisation agenda, which I heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), affecting Reading and many neighbouring towns in our area. To make matters even worse than that, we have a ridiculous situation where the Government are pressing ahead with a hard Brexit—or something that resembles it closely—which is driving away highly skilled NHS staff. Around 14% of the staff at my local hospital are from the EU. Can anyone imagine how difficult recruitment could be in a very short space of time?

Thirdly, we need real change. That means significant long-term increases in investment, not just warm words and playing with statistics to create a misleading impression about the level of funding. If the Government really believe in the NHS, they need to demonstrate that with their actions and policy choices, rather than just making vague promises that they are unlikely to deliver.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matt Rodda]

I am afraid I am pushed for time.

Other Members have highlighted many of the changes needed, but I want to pick up on a few crucial points. First and foremost, the Government must ensure that the NHS responds to the needs of patients and staff on the ground, and not just spout management jargon about changes that sounds convincing. That means a much greater focus from Ministers and officials on the needs of local communities. In high-cost areas such as Berkshire, it means looking at new measures to support recruitment and retention, including the cost of living. Ministers should consider proposals for increasing overall pay in the three counties in the Thames valley, with increased weighting for other high-cost areas, to help recruit and retain staff in towns such as Reading and Woodley.

To sum up, the NHS remains one of our most precious institutions. Staff are obviously working tirelessly in a very difficult and trying situation, yet their dedication is not being matched remotely by Government funding. What is needed now is a complete and utter rethink of Government health policy. We need real change, and only Labour will deliver that change, through the funding and support that we desperately need for our NHS.

Appropriate ME Treatment

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

First, may I add my support to the motion as set out on the Order Paper and congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on leading the way in securing this debate and also on her excellent speech.

I spoke in a previous Westminster Hall debate and later put down written questions on ME on the basis suggested by Dr Ian Gibson, whom longer-standing Members may remember as the Labour Member for Norwich and a distinguished medical scientist in his own right. Ian was incensed by the use of graded exercise therapy. He said that it was less than useless and actually damaging to sufferers as well as causing them pain and raising false optimism that such therapies would work. Given that ME causes extreme fatigue, suggesting more exercise seems to me about as sensible as asking frostbite sufferers to walk about in snow. The other suggested treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy, helped to underpin the myth that ME is a psychological problem, not a physical condition. Neither of those supposed therapies should have been given credence and efforts should have been focused long ago on discovering the real causes of ME and on undertaking proper and thorough research to develop effective treatments.

I first became aware of ME more than 25 years ago when two of my young relatives were found to be suffering from the condition. The fact that I was not aware of ME until then is itself extraordinary given that some 25,000 children are estimated to be suffering from the condition. That is more than 38 children, on average, for every one of our constituencies.

I later became informed of sufferers in my own constituency and recall one man in particular who suffered constant pain and had to lie in a darkened room because he could not bear the light. Such symptoms are well known, but, of course, like so many illnesses, the severity of symptoms can vary greatly. MS, for example, can advance rapidly, or can remain fairly mild and stable for many years. Such variations do not invalidate the condition.

I have mentioned children with ME, but if all adults were included, the figure reaches 250,000, or nearly 400 per constituency; it really is that serious. The impact on the lives of those constituents is enormous, but the cost to society and to the economy is over £3.3 billion a year—an enormous sum. Therefore, finding causes and discovering effective treatments are vital. Funding research must be a priority, first, to reduce the level of suffering, but also to reduce the wider social and economic costs. Research into ME represents just 0.02% of all grants given to funding agencies—just one 500th of the total, a pathetic amount.

In conclusion, I hope that we are now putting behind us all the myths and misdiagnoses related to ME. It is a physical condition and it is causing untold suffering. Recent research has looked very promising, and has pointed to possible causes of ME. One factor in particular has recently received publicity—the overactive immune system in many sufferers. It seems that we are starting to move in the right direction. We must congratulate the scientific and medical researchers who have done, and who are doing, so much valuable work towards finding solutions to the scourge of ME and alleviating the suffering that it causes.

I hope that Ministers and other hon. Members will take note of the reports in “Breakthrough”, the journal of ME research—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I call Mr Stephen Pound.

ME: Treatment and Research

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. May I first say how moving and graphic the speech from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) was? I am so pleased that I was here to hear it.

I shall speak briefly because much of what I would have said has been said already, but I want to add my voice to all those demanding that we take ME seriously—that in the future, doctors and the medical profession do what they can to find out what causes it and to deal with that, but also to make lives bearable and strive to find cures if we possibly can.

I first became aware of ME some 30 years ago when two young relatives—close relatives, although not in my immediate family—contracted ME. They suffered for a long time during their childhood and youth. The condition is much improved now, but I became aware of the medical profession’s lack of belief in ME. They were constantly told that it was a psychological problem, not a medical or physiological one. We now know better.

There has been discredited research, such as the PACE trial—and others, no doubt—which is now being dismissed, and not before time. However, the medical profession and, indeed, Governments will grasp at things that encourage them to do nothing, or not to do something that is very difficult. To deal with it is very difficult.

We heard from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan)—she has just left her place—who is the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Lyme disease. I also belong to that group, because I had a very dear friend who suffered terribly from Lyme disease and who was not diagnosed for years. She suffered terrible psychological and physical problems, as well as marital break-up and so on. If people are not properly diagnosed and are not given the proper treatment and sympathy, they can suffer even worse than they do with the disease.

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

The conditions vary enormously. People suffer very different symptoms, and some people suffer very severe symptoms. I had one constituent who, like so many others, could not get out of bed for long periods and had to live in a darkened room because looking at light was too painful. The idea that such people would have their condition dismissed as some sort of psychological phenomenon is complete nonsense and utterly cruel.

I have taken up this issue in the recent past, prompted by an old friend, Dr Ian Gibson, who was a Member of Parliament for one of the Norwich seats. He wrote to me about the PACE research, dismissing it as nonsense in the very strongest terms. He asked me to table a series of parliamentary questions, which I did, and I like to think they had some influence on the Government’s thinking. I hope the Minister will recognise the depth of feeling about the appalling way ME sufferers have been treated for so long, and start to take steps to correct that.

We are used to having experts tell us things and deferring to them, rightly in many cases, but of course sometimes experts get it wrong. Sixty or 70 years ago, some doctors were known to recommend that patients take up smoking because it would be good for their health. No doubt, some of those people died of lung cancer later on. It was a terrible thing to do, and some of those doctors should have felt rather guilty about that afterwards.

There was a particular case in the 1960s of a noted famous psychologist who wrote books about psychiatry that were regarded as bibles by young people. His view was that there was no such thing as mental ill health; it was just a different way of viewing the world. He was famously debunked when he was speaking at a conference to an audience of schizophrenics. They got up and said, “You are trying to tell us we are well. We are telling you: we are not.” People are suffering, and they are constantly being told that they are actually well—that they are just putting it on, or, as he said, that it is an alternative way of viewing the world. At the end of his life, that famous psychologist publicly recanted on the radio, after he no doubt caused much suffering to many people through his life.

We must always make sure that there is a proper evidence base and that statistics are properly measured. We had a paper circulated to us that shows that the PACE statistics were false. They just did not work. We want more resources put into making sure that proper research is done and that ME sufferers are properly supported financially and medically. We have to find what causes it. We have to find cures where we can, and we have to make the lives of people who suffer from ME a lot happier in future.

I have said more than enough. I wanted to add my voice to all of those who have spoken so brilliantly today, in particular the lead speaker, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who made a brilliant and eloquent speech that I am sure we are all very grateful for.

Social Care

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to speak once again in a debate on this important subject. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, who has made this speech before and been resolute in standing up for the care industry, and I support the Labour motion, which is very good. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who spoke for the Scottish National party, also made some very important points.

I support what the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly said 19 years ago: long-term care should be free at the point of need and paid for out of general taxation. I want to go beyond what Labour is saying at the moment, however, which I applaud and support, and look to a world with free long-term care and a care service run on exactly the same basis as the national health service. We were moving in that direction just before we lost office in 2010. The then Secretary of State for Health suggested a national care service like the national health service. I intervened on him and said, “Yes, and paid for out of general taxation and free at the point of need,” but we did not get it. We did not get the support all those years ago, despite the support of many Members for the royal commission report, strong support in the country and a trade union-led campaign calling for free long-term care. It was all to no avail and so the issue has rumbled on ever since. The issue did not go away, however, and I raised it myself in the Chamber several times over those years.

Eventually, the Dilnot commission was set up, and in its 2012 report it recommended a compromise. Sir Andrew Dilnot, whom I know well, is a superb man, and he did a brilliant job. He came up with a compromise that he thought might be worn by the Treasury, proposing that self-funding should be capped at £35,000 for a lifetime. The Government dragged their feet and resisted, but eventually, after wriggling a lot, they agreed to a lifetime cap of £72,000—twice the amount that Sir Andrew had suggested. Even then, however, that was deferred until 2020, and now it seems to have been deferred indefinitely. We are well away from where we should be. Scotland, of course, has had free care, and I applaud Scotland for that. I do not know why we should not follow suit.

If self-funding affected only the wealthy, it would not be such a worry, but it actually affects millions of working-class families. The first generation who became owner-occupiers have been particularly badly hit. Successive Governments have wrung their hands about the difficulties experienced by young people in achieving owner-occupation, while at the same time cutting off one of the only possible routes to owner-occupation for many: the cascading of family equity down the generations, whereby the capital in Granny’s home passes down to grandchildren when she ends her days.

I hold resolutely to the view that long-term care should be free to all, and funded from progressive taxation at the point of need. I am not too concerned about how that taxation is raised—it could be national insurance, income tax or a hypothecated tax—but the money should come from general taxation.

[Scott Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about the funding of care, but I should be interested to know whether he considers the use of technology, which I mentioned and which was mentioned by a couple of my colleagues, is an option that might enable us to do things slightly better.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am always in favour of improving the way we do things, and technology is of course important.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that some funding decisions and challenges are very difficult, and given the amount of money that is needed, we should adopt a cross-party approach, looking at all the options, building consensus, explaining the position to the public and ensuring that this arrangement is delivered?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In fact, the royal commission did cover funding. Over the last 20 years and more, I have spoken to many audiences, and have asked them, “What would you prefer—to have your house taken away from you, or Granny’s house taken away, or to pay slightly more tax?” The unanimous view was in favour of a slightly increased level of taxation to pay for long-term care. Everyone is going to get old. I am easily the oldest person in the Chamber. I am not planning to go into long-term care any time soon, but on the other hand I am closer to it than the other Members who are present. However, I will not speak about myself.

There is another factor in all this. In my constituency, there were three local authority care homes where the residents were happy, the staff were wonderful, and the healthcare professionals treasured them. All those homes were closed, and the land was sold off. Now we see the private care sector in constant difficulty. Given the collapse of Southern Cross and the ongoing threats to the future of many more homes, I believe that at some point the state will have to step in to ensure that care continues to be provided. Indeed, the Minister conceded that point: she said that we would have to step in and solve the problem. Why not set up a national care service now, and start to bring care homes back into the public sector as we did in 1948? I am not old enough to remember Nye Bevan’s speech in the House in which he proposed the establishment of the national health service, but I was inspired by him when I was at school, and my policies developed as a result.

Another scandal has been reported recently, namely the practice of effectively using self-funders to subsidise publicly funded residential care. Contracts with cash-strapped councils are squeezed, and charges for self-funders are increased to compensate. In one case, the charge for a care home resident who had been state-funded and then became self-funding was multiplied by several times. Most worryingly, there have been reports of inadequate care in homes across the country, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South. When care is provided by homes in the private sector that are squeezed for funding and have to make profits, it is inevitable that care standards will eventually be cut. It is clear that long-term care should not be in the profit-driven private sector, but should be a true public service, in the public sector. I commend today’s motion and all that has been said by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, but we have to move towards a national care service, based on exactly the same principles as the national health service.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I would like to praise our social care workforce and those who provide care voluntarily. The Government are not in denial about the issues that we face. That is why the Green Paper is being worked on and will be with us within months.

In spite of the huge challenges in this area, the Select Committee on Health and Social Care learned only yesterday that there were 1,700 fewer delayed transfers of care this February compared with the previous February. That is a small bit of progress in the right direction. In evidence to our sustainability and transformation inquiry, the Committee learned about some of the other good things happening around the country, including the passport scheme for care home staff in Wakefield, which allows them to transfer easily around the sector with their qualifications and experience properly registered and recorded. That will lead to an extra 750 jobs in that area by 2025.

In addition, we learned that in the 12 months to quarter 2 in 2017-18, compared with the 12 months to quarter 2 in 2015-16, emergency admissions in enhanced healthcare homes fell by 1.4%, compared with care homes in the rest of England that were not in that scheme, where they rose by 6.7%. We learned that in Buckinghamshire, through joint working between the NHS and local councils responsible for social care, there was a 57% reduction in falls leading to harm. The last example is from Tameside and Glossop, where, we were told, nurse-led telemedicine to care homes reduced hospital admissions from 122 to 75 and resulted in 75 earlier discharges. Those are examples of good practice around the country, but as ever with health and social care the question is how we can mainstream them all over the country.

In my remaining few minutes, I want to discuss what we do about the situation. Germany has introduced a proper nationalised social care insurance scheme, whereby people pay contributions, with adjustments made every few years. It has been in place since 1995 and has settled down. It is not contentious, but has broad agreement, and Japan has a similar scheme. They have been doing it for 23 years, and for me that points to the direction that we need go in.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Selous]

Very briefly.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, is agreeing with what I was saying. We can debate how it is paid for, but we want a national care service, paid for by everybody.

[Andrew Selous]

I think Germany absolutely has something to teach us, and it has a private insurance scheme on top of that as well.

We need to see weekend discharges in hospitals, on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, with local authorities and social care being available over the weekend, so that we do not get a bulge on Monday morning, causing our hospitals huge problems. We need proper pay for care home staff. They have a choice, but there is no choice for us as a country about whether we look after our frail elderly people and those who need social care. We have to do it, but people do not have to choose social care as a profession. Therefore, we need some proper labour market analysis and parity between similar jobs in the NHS and social care. The lowest-paid workers in the NHS have just had a 29% pay rise. If we are to have true parity, we need to treat the social care workforce as well as we treat the NHS workforce. Independent living schemes, which my own local authority of Central Bedfordshire is pioneering, are showing the way, and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was impressed when it went to see Priory View in Dunstable. I gather that in East Sussex there is data to show that this type of extra care scheme—

Autism

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), whose speech was interesting, intelligent and very passionate, born of personal experience. I must also congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) on securing and leading this important debate, which follows her great innovation of the Autism Act 2009.

As I am sure other Members did, I watched the excellent Channel 4 TV programme on autism yesterday evening. Its focus was primarily on a number of high-functioning, lively, intelligent and indeed charming younger people, illustrating the enormous breadth of the autistic spectrum. It is clear that the spectrum is not simply linear, but more of a patchwork of very varied and quite different behavioural characteristics. My concern today is about those who suffer more serious symptoms, as well as about their families and carers, who sometimes have to cope with very challenging behaviours, but my main focus will be on the possible causes of autism and how they might be addressed.

We know that autism comes in many forms, and although it is an unusual neurological condition, it can vary enormously—from those with behaviours that can be challenging to high-functioning individuals who sometimes have astonishing talents and abilities. Only yesterday, there were media reports about a brilliant young schoolboy with extraordinary musical abilities who seems destined for a great career as a concert pianist; even now, he is already composing.

As I have said, my particular concern is to look at the possible causes of autism and to address some possible factors in autism in its more distressing forms. I must emphasise that I am no expert in neurology, but I have long taken a thoughtful amateur interest in the subject. I am sure that much, indeed most, autism derives from genetic factors, and as the human genome is explored, some of this will be explained.

Some environmental factors, however, must also play a part in a range of human conditions. For example, it is well known that a deficiency in folic acid during pregnancy can be a contributory factor in certain birth defects, and vitamin D deficiency is at the root of much ill health. Even more worrying are the effects of some prescribed medications given in pregnancy, which have been demonstrated to cause foetal problems and lifetime difficulties for some babies.

I have to say that I have a specific interest in the influence of alcohol consumed in pregnancy, and I have long been an active member of the all-party group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Most significantly, questions have been asked about the possibility that alcohol is a factor in some cases of autism. In preparing for this debate, I looked online at what research had been undertaken in order to discover whether there was a causal link between alcohol consumed in pregnancy and some—I emphasise, some—cases of autism. I found abstracts of six research reports dating from 2005 to 2012, in which the researchers have concluded that FASD and autism do exhibit similarities, although it is difficult to show that they are exactly the same. It is of course important to distinguish correlations and observed similarities from causal relationships.

The finding of one piece of research is that FASD and autism share similarities in social and communicative functioning. A more detailed report has illustrated a strong overlap between behavioural characteristics in FASD and in autism. That piece of research compared behaviours for 10 different conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder and depression, as well as autism and FASD. Some 39 characteristic behaviours for FASD were compared with the other conditions, and of them, 20 were also typical of autism, 24 of bipolar disorder, 17 of depression and 12 of ADHD. There were also differences between FASD and autism disorders, but it remains a possibility that there is a link between the two. Indeed, some individuals have in the past been diagnosed as autistic when they had actually been affected by alcohol and had FASD.

It is known that people with extreme cases of FASD exhibit facial dysmorphology, but researchers have found that FASD children are equally sensitive intellectually, regardless of whether or not they have facial dysmorphology. Such factors can make it more difficult to distinguish FASD from autism, and there are of course cases of individuals having both autism and FASD.

More research clearly needs to be carried out, and I have probably only scratched the surface of the research already done. However, if alcohol is a factor in some cases of autism, this would be very significant, and it would surely make the case for abstaining from alcohol in pregnancy overwhelming. Indeed, any substance, especially a medication, that is known to cause foetal damage should be avoided around the time of conception and during pregnancy. We all know that, but not enough is done to publicise it.

Even if it is eventually found that FASD and autism are entirely separate conditions, reducing the incidence of FASD—a terrible affliction in itself—is surely a vital and urgent matter that must be more seriously addressed by the Government. A number of Governments in Canada, Denmark and elsewhere are far ahead of Britain in taking steps to reduce the incidence of FASD, and we must follow their good practice. Many thousands of people will in future benefit in life-enhancing ways if those of us in politics do much more to reduce levels of the distressing forms of autism and of FASD. If we do this, we shall certainly have achieved something of immense significance, and indeed, I believe that we shall have added to the sum total of human happiness.

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sharma]

I am glad and thankful for the Minister’s very positive intervention and for the information that she has provided to Members in the Chamber. Activist groups and campaigners, such as the National BAME Transplant Alliance, support the move to an opt-out system, because it will ultimately save more lives across our diverse country.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

I support everything that my hon. Friend has said. Like him, I represent a constituency with a very high proportion of people from BAME communities. There are not just fewer people consenting to donate their organs, but considerably higher rates of heart disease among these communities. Therefore, particularly for heart transplants, it is very important that we get as many people from BAME communities on to the list in future.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to raise that matter myself, so I am thankful that he both highlighted and supported it.

Issues such as diabetes, high blood pressure and hepatitis are more common in BAME communities, making their members more likely to need transplant organs. BAME patients make up a third of the kidney transplant waiting list and wait an average of a year longer for a transplant than their white counterparts. Just one person can save or improve up to nine lives. One tragic death can give life to so many through organ donation and even more if they donate tissues as well.

Although ethnic minorities constitute only 11% of the UK population, they make up nearly a quarter of transplant waiting lists, and only six out of every 100 people signed up to the NHS organ donor register are from BAME communities. Opt-out can and will save lives. It respects religious differences and takes away no freedom of expression or belief. Countless constituents of mine have written to urge me to come to the House today to support the Bill, and I am proud to do so and to lend my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, as she always does. As others have said, the Bill is only a part of the way to increase the number of people, whatever their age or background, willing and able to contribute their organs. In concert with the Bill, however, we also need to have an open discussion in our communities about the importance of making a proactive contribution in this way.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) made a very important point about age. I have come here, as somebody of a certain age, with my donor card, which I have carried all my adult life. There is the thought that the organs of someone my age might not be in as good a state as a young person’s and therefore might be less likely to be used in transplants, but bodies can be used for medical research—perhaps into ageing, for example. I like to think that people of my age could still donate their bodies, even if they die from natural causes, and I will make sure that that is included in my will, so that my body could be used for medical research or perhaps for teaching medical students.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It reinforces the notion that, in addition to legislation, all of us who believe in the value of organ donation should ensure that as many people as possible register. The Bill will play an important role in that, but all of us, as leaders in our communities, have an absolute responsibility to get that message across to our constituents.

I do not intend to detain the House much longer, but I do want to make the point that we are lucky and privileged today to be joined by Emma Johnson. Emma is often referred to as “Max’s mom”, although I do not think she minds. As the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned, Max is the 10-year-old who fronted the Daily Mail’s campaign on organ donation. He was kept alive by a tiny metal pump that was in his chest for seven months. I am delighted to learn that, after finally receiving a heart transplant, Max is doing well. His story and that of the sacrifice made by Keira Ball, spoken of movingly by the hon. Gentleman, should serve as an inspiration to us all. We are here today to save lives like Max’s: those of the thousands of people who would benefit from the change set out in the Bill. We have a precious opportunity to make that change today. We have at our fingertips the opportunity to make a powerful, important and meaningful change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I did not; I said the opposite. I said that we need to do a lot more and I told the House what we are doing. If the hon. Lady looks at what is happening in her own clinical commissioning group, she will see that the proportion that is spent on mental health has gone up from 12.3% to 13%. She will see that this Government have done a huge amount on mental health. In 13 years, Labour did not have any waiting time targets for mental health and did not introduce parity of esteem—a whole range of things that are now happening and that she should support.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

Will the Government commission more extensive research into the causes of mental ill health among children and young people, both pre and post-natal, with a view to preventing as much ill health as possible?

[Mr Hunt]

We are absolutely going to do that. We have a big programme of expansion in perinatal health support, because there is a lot of evidence that pressures on mothers around the time of birth transmit to their children and can leave lasting damage.

Social Care

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to a funding proposal for social care which would have no cap on care costs and would include the value of homes in the means test for care at home; further notes that this proposal would leave people with a maximum of only £100,000 of assets; calls on the Government to confirm its intention not to proceed with this commitment; and further calls on the Government to remove the threat to withdraw social care funding from, and stop fines on, local authorities for Delayed Transfers of Care and to commit to the extra funding needed to close the social care funding gap for 2017 and the remaining years of the 2017 Parliament.

After the debacle of the dementia tax, there has been continuing concern that the current and future issues about the funding of social care are not being addressed. The worries stirred up by the Conservative party during the general election will not be resolved without a better idea about what the future now holds for social care.

One place where people were expecting to hear some discussion on this was at the party conferences in September, but if we thought that we would hear about it in the conference speeches of the Secretaries of State responsible for social care, we were sadly let down.

At the Labour party conference, I talked about the crisis in social care and how it was failing those who need care and their families, failing unpaid family carers and failing hundreds of thousands of care workers. People needing care and their carers face the greatest impact. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, there are 400,000 fewer people receiving publicly funded care and, sadly, more than 1.2 million people now living with unmet care needs, many of whom are isolated and lonely.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is raising a very important issue, which is leading to a lot of suffering among elderly people in particular. Will she make reference to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly, which, almost two decades ago, recommended free long-term care for all? That is where we should be.

[Barbara Keeley]

I will talk about how the Labour party will take forward proposals on the future of social care. We wait to hear what the Government choose to do. My hon. Friend is right that there is a driving need now.

The number of people—1.2 million—living with unmet care needs will inevitably rise without an injection of new funding. A lack of publicly funded care means that the task of meeting care needs falls more heavily on unpaid family carers. Many carers have to give up work because of the demands of caring, which has a real impact on their finances and future career prospects. The case for listening to carers and giving them more support is overwhelming. We were expecting a new carers’ strategy this spring, or, at the latest, in the summer. Some 6,500 carers had taken the time over and above their caring responsibilities to respond to the Government’s consultation. However, the Care Minister told me that the responses will merely be taken forward into a new consultation on social care.

Katy Styles, a carer and a campaigner for the Motor Neurone Disease Association, contributed to that consultation and hoped that her voice would be heard, alongside 6,500 other carers. She told me:

“Not publishing the National Carers Strategy has made me extremely angry. It sends a message that carers’ lives are unimportant. It sends a message that Government thinks we can carry on as we are. It sends a message that my own time is of little worth.”

That is a shabby way to treat carers—the people who provide more than 50% of the care in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

We will come on to that. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get into the mess that his party made, the truth is that we legislated a number of years ago to lift the asset floor to £118,000. What his party did during the election was drop that to £100,000. At the weekend, we learned that there was an intention to make it only £50,000. He should be clear about what his Front-Bench colleagues were trying to do. Since then, all we have heard is a deafening silence.

We need to focus on the crisis in social care now. We on the Labour Benches have raised many times just how fragile the care sector is after years of swingeing budget cuts by the Government. A survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services reported that more than two thirds of councils had reported closures of care providers in the first five months of the financial year. Nearly half those councils had had homecare providers handing back contracts.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend refers again to local authority care homes. In my constituency, three superb local authority care homes were forcibly closed effectively by Government policy. They were loved by the residents. They had full-time, permanently employed trade union staff and were supported and applauded by the local healthcare professionals. They were all closed. Now we have only the private sector, which is in crisis.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is very important that we bear in mind that the 1.45 million workforce in care will have been local government employees and will have enjoyed local government terms and conditions. We have talked many times about the fact that they are not now paid the minimum wage or travel time. They are very badly paid, with no pensions in prospect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I absolutely agree, and it was helpful of my hon. Friend to make that point. The sleep-ins issue has been a real cause of worry for many organisations over many months. It just goes to the heart of our assertion that people who work in care should be paid the minimum wage, including when they are working at night, which is what they are doing on sleep-ins. I have a constituent who looks after two households of people in adjoining properties, and she does not get normal sleep during the night as alarms can go off in any part of the properties. It is not right at all that those people were paid just fixed amounts, not the minimum wage. The Government must find the funding for that decision.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do apologise for intervening so often. Does my hon. Friend agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) has hinted, that the whole care sector ought to be in the public sector in the longer term at least, provided on the same basis—free at the point of need—as the national health service?

[Barbara Keeley]

As I said earlier, I will come to our proposals; I do not want to jump around in my speech too much more.

Going back to staff working in social care, it is important to remember and think about social workers, not just care staff. A recent study found that less than half the social workers surveyed felt that decisions about a person’s care and support were being left to their professional judgment; it is now all about budgets. More than a third said that they had felt unable to get people the care they need. Less than half felt supported to have necessary difficult conversations about changes to care with people needing care and their families.

The social care crisis is a direct result of the cuts that this Government have chosen to make. The King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust estimated that there would be a funding gap in social care budgets of £1.9 billion for this year, but the extra funding in the Budget was only £1 billion, so there is still a funding gap of £900 million this year. Labour pledged an extra £1 billion for social care this year to start to deal with that funding crisis. However, the Government have chosen instead to put the pressure on local authorities and hard-pressed local council taxpayers to deal with that social crisis, which was made in Downing Street.

Delayed transfers of care due to social care cuts increased by more than a quarter in the 12 months to August this year, putting extra pressure on local councils. Now, sadly, Ministers are threatening councils with fines and further funding cuts to social care if targets for cutting delayed transfers of care cannot be met. Indeed, ADASS reported that half the social services directors it surveyed believe that their targets for delayed transfers were unrealistic. It is barely believable that the Government’s response to the social care crisis is to threaten to make the situation worse by cutting funding for social care even further. Some councils experiencing problems meeting targets were even summoned by NHS leaders last week to a meeting to review their performance challenges.

Many people have said that the approach of blaming and penalising local councils is not sustainable. The Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Porter, said of the warning letters sent from Ministers to councils:

“No council wants to see anyone stay in hospital for a day longer than necessary. These letters are hugely unhelpful at a time when local government and the NHS need to work together to tackle the health and social care crisis.”

The president of the ADASS, Margaret Willcox, has described the Government’s actions in threatening councils with further sanctions as, “frankly bizarre”. David Oliver, who is clinical vice-president of the Royal College of Physicians and a geriatric consultant, said about delayed transfers of care:

“Some of these delays are due to systematic cuts to social care budgets and provision. Others are due to a serious lack of capacity in community healthcare services…attempts to solve the problem through initiatives like the Better Care Fund or pressure from NHS England have failed”.

Interestingly, Andrea Sutcliffe, the chief inspector of social care at the Care Quality Commission, said:

“I worry that if people focus just on moving people through the system quickly then does that mean that they will force the discharge of somebody that is old and frail into a service which we have rated ‘inadequate’”.

We now have a Government who are driving the NHS to be obsessed with dealing with delayed transfers of care, seemingly above all else. This obsession causes further problems if patients are discharged without planning what they need outside hospital.

Age UK give an example that was brought to it:

“Terry’s father Richard, 85, is in hospital following a stroke. He is ready for discharge and has been assessed as needing rehabilitative care through two home visits a day. However he was then told that there are no reablement services available in his area. Terry has been told to ‘get his father out of hospital’ and to look for and fund the care himself.”

My own local hospital, Salford Royal, sadly seems to have similar issues. Last week, I spoke to a constituent who described her own discharge by saying, “I was thrown out of hospital.” Having had surgery for an infected bite that caused sepsis and a hand that she could not use, my constituent was given no discharge summary, no advice on how to manage her wound and no advice about her recovery. When she struggled to get dressed, she was told that she had to get out quickly, otherwise, “This will count as a failed discharge.” This a theme we may remember from last winter.

I remind the Minister that the British Red Cross talked then of a humanitarian crisis whereby people were sent home without clothes or into chaotic situations. Those chaotic situations involved them falling and not being found for hours, or not being washed because there were no care staff to help them. Ordering patients out of hospital when there is no reablement service for them, without advice about wounds or recovery, or to a care facility rated as inadequate just to meet unrealistic targets on delayed discharge is a recipe for an even worse crisis this winter.

Contaminated Blood

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for that input. It is absolutely right that she, like all our constituents, brings her experience to this. We need to make sure that we do go back far enough.

Last year, Gary attended a debate we had here once again to discuss this heartbreaking issue. He attended a specialist school in Alton, where he was one of many haemophiliacs. He told me that he kept in contact with around 100 other students, all of whom had been affected by contaminated blood, although only around 20 were still alive. These students all contracted illnesses through blood products they had received because of their haemophilia. Tragically, Gary’s story is similar to that of thousands of others across the country.

Other constituents, some of whom wish not to be named, have had grave financial burdens placed on them and their families as a result of the diseases they contracted from contaminated blood, which have affected their lives. It is only right that we support those whose lives have been significantly affected by these contaminated products. I am therefore pleased to hear about the additional support that the Government will provide to those who have been roundly affected. I am particularly pleased that the annual payments for those with hepatitis stage 2 will increase to £15,500, and then to £18,500 in 2018-19. Payments to those co-infected with HIV and hepatitis stage 2 will also go up, to £36,500 by 2018-19. I am pleased to see that these payments will be linked to CPI.

That will help to support all our constituents we know have been affected. I know from speaking to Gary and others about the real hardship and challenges these conditions have brought to their lives, and about the difficulty they face in working, and in bringing up and supporting their families in the way they would have liked had they not been affected.

Almost £400 million has been paid out to those affected by five different organisations, which have been funded by the Department of Health. I am delighted to hear about the £125 million the Government have committed as additional funding for the reformed scheme, which will double the Department’s annual spend on the scheme over the next five years. That money must go to the people who really need it—that should absolutely be noted—because the daily-life decisions they have made have been really difficult because of their financial impact.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady talks about a reformed scheme, and some people have fallen outside the existing scheme. My constituent Sharon Moore, who suffered a transfusion of contaminated blood, has been told that she is outside the criteria. Would the hon. Lady urge the Government to look at cases again under the new scheme to make sure that people are not missed and not excluded unnecessarily?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point forward. There is nothing more frustrating for an MP than hearing that people have just fallen outside the bracket. That is the worst place to be, and the scope of the inquiry will perhaps give us the chance to look at that.

This Government have done significantly more than other Governments to protect those who have been affected. There is a commitment to ensure that we pull the five fairly complex schemes together and transfer them into a new scheme in 2017. These people have complicated and difficult lives anyway, and it is only right that we make it easier for victims to get the support they need.

I am so pleased that the Prime Minister made her announcement this morning and that there will be a full and wide-ranging inquiry into the tragedy. I am pleased that the inquiry will be drawn together by the victims, to support and suit the victims. I am pleased that they will finally have a voice—the strongest voice possible—so that they can get the most and the fullest answers they can, which is what they deserve. It is only right that this consultation will be held with those affected by this terrible injustice, so that their families also have a voice.

I hope that the inquiry will provide answers for those who are looking for them. In particular, there are concerns about criminality—when I heard that issue raised in this House, it was extremely concerning. We now have a vehicle to get people’s voices heard, and if there is anything that should be going through the courts, we can do something about that.

With this inquiry, we have an opportunity to make sure that no voice is lost, and that the victims and their families get the right inquiry, the fullest compensation and the answers they rightly deserve.