Reform of Social Care

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that the Government have been anything other than absolutely clear about what we are setting out to do. This is a problem that derived from the commercial decisions that the company made and it should be resolved by further commercial discussions between the company, its landlords and its lenders. We are constantly in touch with all of those, but it is not the Government’s responsibility to step in and take those decisions. What is the Government’s responsibility, which we are clear about and ready to take action as necessary, is to ensure that individuals in those care homes and their families are not abandoned and do not fall through the gaps or find themselves without access to the care and support they need. I hope that, in the midst of the perfectly legitimate concerns being expressed, people do not stray into causing people to be more fearful than they need be.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are taking the action necessary to ensure that residents in Southern Cross care homes, such as Harmony house in my constituency, will not be left without the care that they need?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have a Southern Cross care home in my constituency and I am sure that most Members do. We cannot know precisely how the commercial discussions will turn out, but what we can be sure about is that we have put together with the directors of social services in local authorities clear contingency plans to protect the residents if need be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Wise owl is the kindest description that the hon. Gentleman has ever offered of me. I shall take it that he means it. It’s the best I’ll get.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

5. What recent progress he has made on the introduction of GP commissioning consortia.

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

Last week I announced the third wave of general practice-led pathfinder consortia. I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted that the Nuneaton and Bedworth pathfinder was announced as part of that. There are now 177 groups of GP practices covering in total 35 million people across England, piloting the future general practice-led commissioning arrangements. I expect further coverage in the coming months. Pathfinders are playing an increasing role in commissioning care for patients, so more and more people will benefit from clinical leadership in planning their care.

[Mr Jones]

In giving GP consortia such powers, will my right hon. Friend confirm that if consortia prove to be good housekeepers in terms of both commissioning and budgets, there will be some form of reward incentive that they can invest back into local patient care?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can. Consortia will be able to reinvest any savings they make from their commissioning budgets for patients into improving patient care and health outcomes for patients for whom they are responsible. We have also proposed that consortia should receive a quality premium based on the outcomes achieved for patients, similar at a consortium level to the quality and outcomes framework for individual practices. That will incentivise the consortium as a whole to deliver improving outcomes for patients.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, I can offer the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents great reassurance that not only will the relationship between community health care and specialist health care in hospitals be improved by general practice-led commissioning—because clinicians will speak to clinicians—but the services they rely on will be improved, because we will no longer spend so much money on PCT administration. He will know that in 10 years under his Government the number of managers in the NHS increased by more than 60%.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T4. NHS Warwickshire is consulting on the future of Bramcote hospital, which serves my constituency and the wider north Warwickshire area. That could lead to the closure of the hospital which has provided valuable intermediate care to my constituents over many years. To close the hospital, NHS Warwickshire requires the Department of Health to meet substantial impairment costs. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that before any decision is made by the Department to pay any such costs, the views of the local GP consortiums and local people will be taken into account?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

As my hon. Friend says, NHS Warwickshire is consulting on the future of intermediate care at Bramcote hospital. I hope that he will engage with that consultation and that the views of local people will be taken fully into account by NHS Warwickshire in deciding the way forward. As he knows, the Secretary of State has set out various tests and NHS Warwickshire’s decision must have the support of the GP commissioners; must strengthen public-patient engagement; and must be based on sound clinical evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that those tests will be fully taken into account as part of the consultation process.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Marcus Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that this debate does do that, and I am grateful for this opportunity to increase my own knowledge. However, I think that we need to move on to some very specific recommendations because, as the mover of the motion eloquently said, this is a time for action more than contemplation. That is exactly what Mr March did when he brought the judicial review in April, and the matter has been just been clarified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described, in relation to the mistake that the previous Government made on the situation in Ireland. That was the error made by that Government. That was the finding of the judicial review, and it is what the Government are responding to today.

I shall not read from the judicial review, other than to quote its final paragraphs, because they again relate to Mr March. The learned judge, Mr Justice Holman, said that counsel for the claimant

“paid a warm but measured tribute to…Andrew March, ‘for his tenacity and balance in the asking of questions and soliciting of information, and not taking no for an answer when the reasons are not good ones.’ My impression is that that tribute is justified and well judged, and that the many other people interested in this cause owe gratitude to Mr March for his tenacity or persistence.”

I say again that Mr March has done that for many years, suffering as he did not only from his original medical condition but from the effects of the contamination.

Taintedblood, an organisation that has done a lot of excellent work in briefing us all and preparing us for this debate, states:

“The Under-Secretary of State for Health”—

the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton)—

“recently held a series of meetings with campaigners, the Haemophilia Society, the Macfarlane and Eileen Trusts, the Skipton Fund and others. In those meetings she demonstrated a new willingness by Government to face up to and deal with what has happened to the Haemophilia Community.”

Those organisations must be very disappointed today by the amendment that the Government attempted to move and by the written ministerial statement.

I welcome what is said in the terms of reference about hepatitis C, as has been mentioned. I want to clarify whether the Minister is offering full parity for hepatitis C sufferers with what AIDS sufferers experience, including the £12,800 per annum payments, and that that will be susceptible to the review.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The constituent whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned is the son of one of my constituents in Nuneaton. I want to mention the families of those affected by this disaster, because they have also had to bear a real burden in supporting people such as Mr March over the years. Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the terms of reference that the Minister announced in her statement about supporting the families who have had to bear that burden?

[Mr Slaughter]

No, I definitely do not. I ask the Minister to clarify—if not now, when she makes her speech—whether the terms of reference will allow hepatitis C sufferers to be treated at least as HIV/AIDS sufferers are under the current scheme. I hope that she will do that. However, all that could have been done today. The limited amount that is offered in the review could quite easily have been announced today. If there had to be a review, I should have liked it to have been along the terms of Lord Morris’s Bill, which considered all the remaining provisions of the Archer inquiry and said specifically—this is the contentious part:

“When making the regulations the Secretary of State shall have regard to any comparable compensation schemes offered in other countries.”

The noble Lord’s Bill was a good Bill, but I would say—this is the only criticism that I would make of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West—that I think today’s motion goes a little too far. It calls specifically for parity with the scheme in Ireland. I do not think that it gives the Government sufficient room. I would ask the Government—this is the commitment that I would look for today—to widen the terms of the review and to reconsider all the matters that Lord Archer raised, including compensation. Even if the conclusion is that parity is unlikely with Ireland, where the situation is different even given the judicial review—that was suggested in the opening speeches—in the current financial climate we need to look at the levels of compensation that are paid.

I also think that the motion, while criticising previous Governments, could at least have acknowledged that the previous Government responded to the Archer review by making regular annual payments at a higher level, although I understand that my constituent and many others regard that as inadequate. I regard it as inadequate. We are looking, I think, for something between the two. The unfortunate thing about the Government response today is that it cuts off that option. The amendment and the ministerial statement do not allow the option of considering more generous compensation in the light of Lord Archer’s proposals. That is why I would have voted against the amendment and that is why I think it is wrong for the Government to have given false hope to sufferers and to have dashed that hope with their announcement today.