Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am happy to discuss it further with him. Value-based pricing will be primarily for new drugs, but obviously I understand his concern. It is the concern of the Government to ensure good access to cancer drugs for patients in the future.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Recent comprehensive research by the international study of asthma and allergies in childhood found strong evidence of a link between fast food and asthma, but when I asked the Minister which public health responsibility deal partners he had discussed that with, he said that evaluating science was not within their remit. Does he agree that if the fast food companies have the kudos of being classed as public health responsibility deal partners, they ought to look into such research and actually take some responsibility?

[Anna Soubry]

Those are good points well made, if I may say so. I am more than happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady, because I take the firm view that everyone involved in making, manufacturing, supplying and selling food has a responsibility to make sure that all of us have longer, healthier, happier lives. I am all for ratcheting up the responsibility deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful for the work of Pancreatic Cancer UK. We have put the proposals from its seminar last June into the guidance that we are issuing. I am meeting Pancreatic Cancer UK, other cancer charities and other people who are involved in cancer work this afternoon. I will be happy to raise the matter with them directly and to meet the hon. Lady and representatives of this very good cancer charity. She is right to expose the fact that this cancer is difficult to diagnose. We will be launching pilots in January and I hope that more people will take advantage of that campaign and come forward if they have any symptoms.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

11. What contact there has been between his Department and the director of the NHS south-west pay, terms and conditions consortium.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Since the south-west consortium’s plans were made public in May this year, Department of Health officials have been in contact with NHS employers, NHS trade unions and the south-west consortium better to understand the views of all parties. The Department of Health wants to find a resolution and supports national pay awards.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that response and for his acknowledgement earlier that the way in which the south-west consortium has handled the negotiations has been heavy-handed. It is appalling that staff found out about the plans only through the leaks as, it appears, did the Department. Will he go back to the director of the consortium and urge him to put everything on hold in the south-west while national pay discussions are continuing? As the Minister says, this ought to be about national pay, not regional pay.

[Dr Poulter]

I fully agree with the hon. Lady and I take her concerns on board. However, because of the additional freedoms introduced by the previous Government, local employers in foundation trusts throughout the NHS have additional freedoms to set their own pay, terms and conditions. Under the rules introduced by the previous Government, it is impossible for us to intervene directly in the matter, except by continuing to encourage trade unions and NHS employers to meet the national agreements. If national terms and conditions are agreed to, I am sure that they will be endorsed at a regional level by the south-west consortium.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, was in the Westminster Hall debate this morning and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing it.

As we have heard, regional pay would damage our economy and the NHS. As the shadow Secretary of State said, 60 senior academics have written to The Times to warn the Chancellor that there is “no convincing evidence” to support his claims on the benefits of regional pay and that

“On the contrary, such a policy could reduce spending power, undermine many small and medium-sized businesses in areas of low pay, and aggravate geographical economic and social inequalities.”

According to research by the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s evidence of an alleged public sector pay premium

“suffers from a number of serious shortcomings”

and their statements are

“at best misconceived, at worst mischievous and ideologically driven.”

It concludes that regional pay would cost our economy £2.7 billion at best—if the private sector expanded where the public sector contracted—but that the cost could be up to £9.7 billion each year, with the loss of 110,000 jobs. Regional pay would reduce spending power in the south-west by £1.2 billion.

When we consider regional pay from the perspective of the NHS, we cannot, or at least should not, talk about private sector jobs replacing public sector jobs. The public’s response to the Government’s disastrous reorganisation of our NHS proved that patients do not want to be treated by Virgin Care or Serco, but Ministers still seem determined to remove the N from NHS.

For my constituents, today’s debate is even more important because, as we have heard, trusts in our region have been developing the NHS south-west pay, terms and conditions consortium. This morning, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)whether the Government knew about the consortium before it was established and whether they encouraged the trusts to set it up, and it was interesting that she said, “My understanding is we were involved”—[Interruption.]

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

That is a fascinating answer because it is at odds with the one I received from the Secretary of State during Health questions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much hope that when the Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the Minister once and for all—[Interruption.] No. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—perhaps she will have the courtesy to listen when she is being spoken to from the Chair—that it is not acceptable for any Member of the House to treat the debate as a private conversation between himself or herself and the Member on his or her feet. If the Minister is dissatisfied with what is being said, other people on her Benches can pick up those points. It is totally unacceptable to behave in this way and it will stop straight away. I hope the Whip has noticed it, and I will be speaking to others about the matter.

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is some confusion. When I wrote to the Health Secretary to get some clarity—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not help but notice that the clock did not stop during that intervention. I see that a minute has been added on, but I think it should have been more than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I shall try to move on. When I wrote to the Health Secretary, the response I got back was very ambiguous. It referred mysteriously to when the document was first leaked to the public, rather than saying what the Government were aware of in relation to the consortium.

In the debate earlier today, the Minister definitely said the words, “Yes, we were.” The civil servant behind her was shaking his head and saying, “No, we weren’t. No, we weren’t,” so I hope that we get some clarity on the matter and a firm answer when the Government respond to this debate. To what extent did they know about and encourage the south-west consortium to start?

The consortium, as I indicated, was initially developed in secret but since NHS staff found out about it by accident, I have received hundreds of letters and e-mails from staff who are angry and anxious not just for their own futures, but for their patients. It is shocking that they found out about that only by accident and were not consulted by the consortium.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we were a bit surprised to hear the Secretary of State say that Labour is asking for national pay and opposing regional pay because the unions are bankrolling us? My hon. Friend said that she had received many e-mails. I am sure that, like me, other Opposition Members have received hundreds of e-mails from people who work in the health service—ordinary people, working people—who say that they do not want regional pay. That has nothing to do with any union.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions on both sides should be brief, and rather briefer than that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is sad that the Secretary of State resorted to the union bashing that we also heard from the Minister in the Westminster Hall debate. I have had a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing, and I have a briefing from the BMA about the case against the local and regional approach to pay. That has nothing to do with Labour-affiliated unions. Those organisations are speaking up for their staff, who are extremely worried. It is patronising to say that staff are concerned only because someone stoked them up and told them falsehoods or whatever. They are worried about the proposal because they work in the NHS and they know what impact it will have on them.

The south-west consortium’s explicit intention is to reduce costs by considering

“further more radical changes to the pay and conditions of the workforce”.

Yet to do this at a time when hospital budgets are under great strain and nurses are being made redundant, each trust paid £10,000 of public money to join the consortium. They have to appoint a consortium director, establish a consortium working group and commission legal advice, so it remains to be seen how much the added bureaucracy of the consortium will cost.

Even more worrying is the lack of transparency or accountability for that spending, given that we still do not know who is responsible for employing the director of the consortium or to whom they are answerable. Perhaps most disturbingly, the project initiation document explained that

“it is likely that Trusts would be obliged to dismiss and re-engage staff to secure such changes”,

which not only calls into doubt the validity of their proposals, but has serious cost and legal implications.

I can only agree with the BMA that regional pay is a

“costly and time consuming distraction”.

But of course this affects not only the NHS as an institution, but the individual staff on whom the whole service relies, who potentially face a 15% pay cut. The consortium proposes to cut sickness absence payments so that they are paid only at the base rate, yet for staff permanently on nights, the extra payments that they get for working night shifts are an intrinsic part of their salary, on which their mortgage payments often depend. It would constitute, on average, a 20% pay cut if they were ill and were paid just at the base rate.

Reducing annual leave entitlement not only amounts to a pay cut but means that staff who rely on their leave to balance caring responsibilities will face additional costs, if they can even continue to work. At the same time, extra child care costs will be even less affordable if enhanced payments for nights and weekends—payments which are intended to recognise their personal sacrifices and the additional costs that these workers incur—are changed.

The consortium is also considering increasing working hours. Once again, this is an effective pay cut, which ignores the fact that so many overworked staff already work longer hours. According to the Royal College of Midwives, 87% of midwives “frequently” or “always” worked more than their contracted hours, and more than half reported that none of those extra hours were paid for. These are emotionally and physically demanding jobs and the consortium risks leaving staff even more tired, or coming into work when they are really too ill to do so, in order not to lose their extra pay.

The south-west is a net importer of NHS professionals, but our trusts risk losing demoralised and under-appreciated staff to other regions where the terms and conditions are more favourable. NHS staff require the same training, dedication and commitment all around the country, so why should my constituents be paid less simply because of where they live, especially when there can be a greater demand for health services in the south-west because of our older population, and when the cost of living in many places is so high?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The same sort of thing happened many years ago with plant bargaining, so to speak, at a regional and a national level in the private sector. The employer did away with the national agreements, did away with the regional agreements, and the end result was people being poorly paid. The Secretary of State has no experience of that and he has the effrontery to come to the House today and foist it on everybody. It is a disgrace, bearing in mind who his paymasters are, when he talks about the trade unions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. There is a danger of even greater fragmentation so that we move from national pay to regional pay to very localised pay, with everyone competing against each other—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said “paymasters”. I am sure that he would not want that to be on the record, and that he would want to withdraw it—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Not individuals? I was worried that the hon. Gentleman was referring to individuals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

During the first two years of this Government, the south-west’s nursing work force has fallen by more than 3.5%, which is three times the national average. According to the 2011 national NHS staff survey, 11 of the 20 trusts involved in the south-west consortium are in the worst 20% for people feeling satisfied with the quality of work and patient care. The consortium arrangements will not alleviate these pressures and can only make working conditions worse.

These statistics are reflected in the often heartbreaking comments that I have received from constituents, who report on increased work loads, under-staffed wards, and friends and families they rarely get to see. They are considering leaving the south-west, or the NHS altogether. The consortium’s proposals are the last straw when morale is already at an all-time low. One constituent told me:

“I now feel as disposable as the equipment I use. Nursing is on the cusp of disaster.”

When the Prime Minister claimed to lead

“the party of the NHS”,

I do not think my constituents knew whether to laugh or cry.

Health Ministers’ answers on the consortium, like the Secretary of State’s speech today, frequently hide behind “Agenda for Change”, a framework that was agreed only after lengthy negotiations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. This prevented there being damaging competition for staff, avoided the risk of ratchet bargaining and minimised the costs of pay negotiation. It meant that nurses were no longer paid as little as £12,000 just because of where they lived. Significantly, “Agenda for Change” has largely eradicated equal pay challenges, so I hope Government Members do not want to replicate the larger gender pay gap that we see in the private sector.

National negotiations on “Agenda for Change” are now being undermined by the consortium, especially when the chair of NHS Employers, who also runs a trust in the south-west, was reportedly instrumental in establishing it. I would be interested to know what conversations Ministers have had with the chair of NHS Employers before she played a leading role in setting up the consortium. The Royal College of Nursing warns that the NHS is simply not equipped for the added bureaucracy, time and expense needed to negotiate pay on a more local basis, and that this ultimately would take the more experienced staff away from the front line.

Health Ministers have sought to defend the possibility of regional pay in the NHS by pointing to its potential under “Agenda for Change”. The inclusion of high cost area supplements and the recruitment and retention premiums, as we have already tried to explain to those on the Government Benches, were designed to help trusts recruit in high cost or low supply areas. They were not intended to drive down pay and drive away staff.

NHS staff in Bristol are having to work more, with fewer staff and when their pay is frozen. They are stressed at work and stressed at home as they try to make ends meet each month, and now there is a conspiracy to reduce their pay and conditions. My constituents need answers from Ministers. When did the Department of Health first find out about the consortium? I do not mean when it first found out that the documents had been leaked to the public. Who is responsible for appointing the consortium’s director and for its budget? Most importantly, will the Government intervene to prevent the consortium undermining the progress made under “Agenda for Change”, local health services and the NHS as a national service?

My constituents deserve to be paid according to the work they do, not where they live. The proposals for regional pay risk undermining our national health service and undervaluing the work done by those who have dedicated their lives to it. The proposals should be scrapped, and scrapped now.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes, indeed I do congratulate the trusts in Torbay, which have held out against the pressure to join this cartel. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will put his money where his mouth is and join Labour MPs in the Division Lobby later today, when we will have a main debate on this very subject in the main Chamber.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this issue before us; we have another debate on regional pay this afternoon, but it is important that we have an opportunity to focus on the south-west. Does he agree that one of the most damaging things for morale was that staff found out about the proposals only because they were leaked? There was no attempt at consultation beforehand; the consortium was set up, and the fact that those involved were trying to undermine people’s pay and conditions without talking to them gradually dribbled out.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Yes, I absolutely agree: the whole thing has been handled extremely badly by the trusts involved.

If the proposals go through, the trusts involved are likely to see an exodus of staff, not only to other regions, but, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) suggested, to trusts in the south-west that are not part of the cartel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am extremely grateful for that clarification and I take note. My offer remains: if the right hon. Gentleman would be so good as to contact all those people who wrote to him and seek their permission—in my experience hon. Members often do not need to seek such permission from someone who has contacted them, but simply pass messages on to the Minister—I will happily reply to every one of them, explaining the Government’s view on the matter. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman, too, will share my comments today with all the people who have contacted him.

First, I pay tribute to everyone who works in the national health service, for their continuing hard work and dedication to the NHS. The Government have made it clear that they support the continued option of national terms and conditions in the NHS. We expect most employers will want to continue to use them, provided that the terms remain fit for purpose and affordable. However, every pay system needs to be kept under regular review, to ensure that it remains sustainable. The responsibility for that, in respect of the Agenda for Change pay system, rests with the NHS Staff Council, a partnership of NHS employers and trade unions. The council has been considering the possibility of changes to the national terms of the Agenda for Change for about two years. Indeed, I understand that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) asked them to explore the possibility of more

“flexibility, mobility and sustained pay restraint”

as long ago as 2009, when he launched “From good to great”, but there was no change then, and we are still waiting for any change.

The trade unions tell us that we should stop the south-west consortium—and the right hon. Member for Exeter makes the same point—until we can see whether a national deal is achievable. However, experience suggests that that would be a battle of hope over experience. Negotiations in the current economic climate are not easy and they are not helped when some smaller unions have already declared that they will not support any change. They prefer to stick their head in the sand and put NHS organisations and their members’ job security at risk, rather than engaging in any meaningful way. There is no point believing that the Government can wave a magic wand and make the financial pressures disappear.

[Kerry McCarthy]

When did the Department of Health first find out about the formation of the consortium? When I have written to Ministers in the past, all that I have been told by way of response was factual information about when the document was leaked to the press. They have refused to answer that question about whether they were involved in setting up the consortium, or encouraging people to set it up before it was formed.

[Anna Soubry]

I believe we were not, but I will make further inquiries of my officials, and we will write to the hon. Lady and give her assurances about that. If I am in any way wrong I know that I will be corrected, and will be happy to say so.

It is my understanding that several options have been put forward. No decisions have been made, but every effort is being made to engage with the staff to reach an agreement. I just wish that all the trade unions that represent so many people in the south-west consortium would engage in that process. It is my firm view that that is the absolute duty and aim of all responsible trade unions.

Nursery Milk Scheme

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Annette Brooke]

Absolutely. Indeed, I was talking to one of my local nurseries—a nursery that is registered for milk. The owner of the nursery had discussed with parents whether they wanted the milk or not. Parents had voiced concerns about participating because their children would not drink milk at home, but they said, “Well, we’ll give it a try,” and to their surprise, every child in the nursery drinks their milk in the group setting.

However, in the past few years the costs of the scheme have been rising. In 2007-08 it cost the Government £27 million, but by 2010-11 the amount had risen to £53 million. Increased costs could be due to greater uptake, growth in the number of under-fives in day care settings or increases in the price of milk. The Department of Health has predicted that costs could rise as high as £76 million by 2016 and so recently set up “Next Steps for Nursery Milk”, a consultation to review the current system and consult on how to make efficiencies.

A significant number of day-care providers are effectively paying over 90p a pint for school milk. I know that we must ensure that the scheme can operate as efficiently as possible while ensuring the greatest access for entitled children. There is clearly also a need to add as little as possible to the burden of bureaucracy on child-care providers and schools. I want to take this opportunity to say how pleased I am that the Department has stated its commitment to this universal benefit for under-fives and that it is fully committed to keeping it as such. The options offered in the consultation are: to leave the scheme as it is; to cap the price that can be claimed for milk; to issue e-voucher cards with economy incentives; or for day-care providers and schools to arrange the direct supply of milk themselves.

There are a number of important aspects to consider when thinking about changing the current scheme. First, it is important that as many eligible children as possible receive their allocation of milk. The Department’s own figures show that roughly 40% of the total number of under-fives currently receive milk at their day-care setting. Whatever system is put in place must be easy to use for day-care providers so that as many as possible take part in the scheme. Given the percentage of children who currently do not receive milk, I ask the Minister to look at how the Government can increase the number of children receiving the milk to which they are entitled. I appreciate that that might be counter to the idea of reducing the costs of the scheme, but I was personally rather disturbed that perhaps only 40% of eligible children access the milk.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that many children are lactose intolerant and that there have been links between the consumption of dairy products, particularly milk, and the development of childhood asthma—there is no firmly proven link, but it has been suggested that there is a connection? Are there alternative sources of calcium, such as soya milk, available to children who perhaps should not be drinking dairy milk?

[Annette Brooke]

I absolutely take on board the point that some children are allergic to cow’s milk. I am sure that is an issue the Minister could address when he sums up.

Winterbourne View

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

On the first point, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these closed settings and institutions too often create the conditions for abuse to take place. It is all the more important, then, to get the regulation right for the sake of those individuals who have to be in such institutions—a minority have to be there for their own safety or that of the public. On the second point, he raised the general issue that for a long time—probably, it has always been the case—mental health has been a poor relation to physical health in terms of the amount of money spent on research and how the money flows within the NHS. I seek to address that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In Bristol, we face the closure of care homes, while south Gloucestershire is outsourcing the in-house home care teams. Following the case of Winterbourne View, which is just outside my constituency, there is a lack of confidence in the area in the private sector. What can the Minister do to reassure people that it is safe to place vulnerable relatives in private sector care homes?

[Norman Lamb]

First, abuse is unacceptable and horrifying wherever it takes place, whether in the public sector or the private sector. The review that followed Winterbourne View being exposed revealed poor standards of care in too many places in both the public and private sectors. We need to be clear on that. Secondly, I have questioned whether there is adequate corporate accountability and whether adequate rules and regulations are in place to ensure that accountability. If people are making a profit out of providing care, they have to be held to account for the standards of that care.

Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

I have not followed that as closely as I might have done, so I hope that we will hear from my hon. Friend later about the practice in Wales. However, we have much to learn from other countries.

It is important that we bear in mind the shrinking provision of social care because we know that demand is growing. Since 2010, local councils’ adult social care budgets have been cut by more than £1 billion, and a further £1 billion of cuts is expected. The number of vulnerable older and disabled people who have their home care services fully paid for by their local authority has fallen by 11% over the past two years. According to a survey by the Care and Support Alliance, services have been cut to 24% of disabled adults. Research by Age UK shows that cuts to council budgets mean increased fees for services—in fact, service fees have increased by 13% over two years. Almost half of all local councils are charging more, or making new charges, for home help or day care. One in six councils has reduced personal budgets for care packages, and almost half of all councils have frozen the rates that they pay for residential care. In addition, the fees for both residential care and nursing home care have increased by 5% on average during the past year.

Those are important statistics, but sadly they are not routinely gathered so that they can be scrutinised by, for example, the Health Committee. They were mainly gathered through freedom of information requests by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and various organisations. Local authorities do not have a full picture of local care provision, particularly that needed by the 80% of care users who are self-funding. Those self-funders—people whose assets exceed the means test for local authority support—spend £5.5 billion a year on care, with top-ups to statutory services costing them another £1.15 billion. It is vital that we have a better and more complete picture of social care provision, including that very large amount for self-funders.

Clauses 1 and 2 introduce a strategic duty on local authorities in England to ensure that sufficient social care services exist in their local area to meet the care needs of disabled people and carers. They seek to move towards local authorities having a total and accurate picture of what is purchased and provided in their area. Existing duties on local authorities relate only to those for whom the local authority has a statutory responsibility—disabled people and carers who meet eligibility criteria and who do not exceed means-testing thresholds.

It might be argued that the Government’s draft Care and Support Bill introduces a duty on local authorities to establish and maintain the provision of information and advice relating to care and support for adults and carers. The draft Bill says that a local authority must promote the efficient and effective operation in its area of a market in services for meeting care and support needs. However, that duty does not cover an assessment of local sufficiency, and it is that picture that can truly help carers and disabled people, particularly in terms of working, as we have just discussed.

Andrew Dilnot, in his 2011 report, set out the need to place duties on local authorities to provide information, advice and assistance services in their area, and to stimulate and shape the market for services. Moving to embrace a duty to develop a full picture of care and support services, and to assess the sufficiency of those services, will assist local authorities in developing their role as market shapers.

Clause 2 includes a duty to promote sufficiency of the supply of care, which, as we have discussed, would bring a new focus on the importance of social care in promoting and enabling work for disabled people and unpaid family carers. Carers UK has analysed local authority joint strategic needs assessments, which is really the only assessment that we have, but this analysis has shown that the majority of those assessments do not link care provision with work, so clause 2 would link well with Government strategies around work for carers and people with disabilities.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

A couple of weeks ago in my constituency, I met a group of young adult carers aged from 18 to 24 who, for the most part, look after disabled parents, but sometimes siblings as well. They have particular needs because they are at the stage when they want to get on with their careers and perhaps go to university, and they have to make the choice between that and putting their life on hold to care. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need particularly to look at the needs of that group, who do not fall into the same category as other adult carers?

[Barbara Keeley]

I do, and I will come on to the issue of student carers. The Bill explores student carers for the first time. I do not know why the issue has not been discussed more in the House, but it is vital that we, as constituency Members, take note of it.

Joint strategic needs assessments done at local level do not link care provision with work, and that is why the clause is important. The Department of Health has an upcoming event on developing care markets, the invitation to which we received yesterday. It says:

“the ability to choose from a variety of high-quality services should be available to all people in a local area, regardless of who pays for their care.”

Age UK, in its support for my Bill, commented on that Government aim to give people who need care and support a greater choice. It said:

“this cannot become a reality unless local care markets work effectively to provide people, including those with specialised needs, with appropriate services. Whilst we welcome proposed duties in the draft Care and Support Bill that would require local authorities to take steps to ensure that appropriate services are available this falls a long way short of a requirement to ensure sufficiency. We will certainly be advocating for a Bill or subsequent regulations that will include more specific duties on local authorities.”

People with Learning Disabilities (Abuse)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.”

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend talked about meeting the parents of the patients in the care homes. One of the concerns that have been raised with me is that of elderly parents who care for children with learning disabilities. In particular, my constituent Ivor Needs has a son who is vaccine damaged. Because Winterbourne View is in the vicinity of my constituency, they are really concerned because they have no confidence that the system will be able to look after their child when they are no longer around to do so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need some system in place to ensure that people such as Ivor’s son, Matthew, are looked after when their parents are no longer around to do so?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and, yes, she is correct. That point was raised with me today several times. Over the years I have certainly had many letters from parents who simply ask, “What will happen to our children when we are no longer here?” I am sorry to say that, on this evidence, I worry very much indeed.

There must also be a review to ensure that the current funding system does not incentivise the keeping of patients for long periods at assessment centres. If adults with learning disabilities are better treated and cared for in their own communities, there has to be a support network. Having local care units that are integrated into local treatment centres is a better model than dispatching patients for assessment hundreds of miles away from their friends, families and communities.

We cannot ignore the voices of the 86 leading figures and charities in the care sector who have stated that the current model poses a real risk that similar abuses will occur in future. Enhanced sentences rightly already exist for those found guilty of racism and homophobia. To begin the process of moving to local integrated units, the Government should begin closing large assessment centres and set a time scale. Local commissioners should develop local services that meet the care requirements of those with learning disabilities.

Sadly, those issues were identified long before the scandal emerged. The late Professor Mansell’s report “Services for People with Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour or Mental Health Needs” was clear in its analysis and prescribed remedy.

The current care model, and the regulation of it, led to these abuses. It is the system that we are challenging. Simon spent 15 months at Winterbourne View and was hit, pushed, abused and tormented. When he cried for help, we collectively let him down. Then there is the experience of James, a child with a learning disability and autism who suffered abuse and neglect. When James needed help, we collectively let him down. Chrissy suffers from various conditions such as autism and epilepsy as well as from challenging behaviour. When Chrissy needed help, we collectively let her down. There is also Victoria, whose father died before she was nine years old. She suffered a lot of family stress. When Victoria needed care, we collectively let her down. Emmanuel, only six months out of school, was sent away to a unit far away from his family, where he remained for 18 months. All those people, and many more, have been collectively let down.

The scandal, highlighted so bravely by Terry Bryan, is predicated on the notion that if people want to abuse someone, they will, under the present system. The status quo is no longer a tenable option. I trust that the Minister will recognise that we need Government intervention to tackle and cure the cause of abuse. We never want a repeat of Winterbourne View or any similar home in today’s or tomorrow’s Britain. We want public support for our efforts in caring for and protecting people with learning disabilities. We must never collectively let them down again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The NHS Commissioning Board is currently conducting a review of the effectiveness of clinical networks, and the scope for expanding them. It includes examining the case for neurological clinical networks, and a report should be published very soon.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T4. In yesterday’s debate, when talking about the south-west consortium, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) emphasised the need for negotiations and agreement with staff. Does the Secretary of State not think it was shocking that staff found out only through a series of freedom of information requests that the consortium existed, and can he tell me when the Department of Health first found out about the consortium?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly write to the hon. Lady about when we were first aware of the consortium. I think it was several weeks ago; indeed, the document referred to prominently in the press on Sunday had been on websites for some weeks, so there is nothing new about that. We knew about it. I reiterate the point that I and my right hon. Friend made yesterday: even though under a Labour Government, in the 2006 legislation, powers were given to trusts to take their own decisions on the employment of staff, they must do so in negotiation with the staff side. We would expect that. From my point of view, the South West Pay Consortium is rightly looking to maximise flexibility, but I have made it clear to the pay review body that we believe that the flexibility it needs can be delivered through negotiations and “Agenda for Change”. It will not and should not require the reduction of pay for staff.

National Health Service

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady only recently walked in. She has not been here from the beginning.

I call on the unions to respond positively to the issue and the national discussions on “Agenda for Change”. I also hope that the Opposition will support the policies that they put in place when in government.

The Opposition have used this debate to make yet another sorry attempt to paint a distorted picture of the NHS. That is wrong. The shadow Secretary of State pours scorn on the performance of the NHS, while we admire the excellence of the staff; he belittles their achievement while we laud them; he scaremongers, while we present the truth more transparently than at any other time in the history of the NHS.

The accusations in the motion are simply wrong, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby at the end of the debate to defeat the motion.