Transforming Care Programme

Debate between Norman Lamb and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I completely agree. That sense of complete injustice and the denial of human rights still exists. Nothing much has changed, which is why the debate is so important, and I share the hon. Lady’s view that we should not tolerate this scandal. What makes the situation even worse is that this is not a demand for vast amounts of extra public money; it is about how public money is spent. Our demand is that money is spent in a way that respects people’s human rights and gives them the chance of a good, happy life in the community, with the support of care workers, friends and family, rather than being trapped in institutions. It is shocking that the situation for very many people has remained exactly the same as it was all those years ago.

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

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) said, it is shocking that it has taken seven years for us to get even this far. I have noticed that although on the one hand the national health service encourages whistleblowers, on the other hand it sometimes litigates to stop whistleblowers, so there is a contradiction. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if people had taken notice of whistleblowers, some of these things might never have happened?

[Norman Lamb]

I do agree, and that is another big subject that I will be pursuing further in the light of the Gosport inquiry, which I established when I was a Minister. In that case, brave nurses tried to blow the whistle in 1991, but they were shut down by management and unable to pursue their concerns. More than 456 people lost their lives as a result of the inappropriate prescribing of opioids, and that was because whistleblowers—brave staff members—were not listened to. In every part of our health service, we must ensure that people feel able to speak up and that they have the legal rights to do so.

The outcome of our deliberations in the Department was to establish the transforming care programme, which was published in December 2012. Interestingly, it was pursued as a concordat and an agreed programme of action. It was supported by an amazing array of organisations, all of whose logos appeared in the document, including—critically—NHS England. Every organisation that signed up to the programme committed to

“working together, with individuals and their families—

note the phrase “with individuals and their families”—

and with the groups that represent them, to deliver real change.”

That was in December 2012.

These organisations that had committed “to deliver real change” also stated:

“Our shared objective is to see the health and care system get to grips with past failings by listening to this very vulnerable group of people and their families, meeting their needs and working together to commission the range of support which will enable them to lead fulfilling and safe lives in their communities.”

To put it bluntly, there has been a shameful failure on that commitment to change, which simply has not happened for the majority of people involved.

At that time we were operating in a fog. No data had been collected historically on the numbers of people in beds in institutions, so we had to rely on periodic censuses to find out whether anything was changing. When we conducted a census about 18 months after the start of the programme, it was shocking to discover that there had effectively been no change—it was business as usual. The really disturbing thing was that many private sector organisations were making substantial investments in new facilities and delivering the wrong model of care. Why did those organisations have the confidence to make major million-pound investments in inappropriate care? It seems to me that to justify such investment, they must have had reassurance from somewhere in the system that things would carry on as they were. It was shocking to discover the extent to which it was simply business as usual.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Norman Lamb and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I think there is a progressive struggling to get out. I can tell that the right hon. Gentleman wants to support this. He sees the argument in favour and he rightly points to the low engagement of people under the age of 25, but we have to ask ourselves why. During their teenage years young people are denied any involvement in our political process. Perhaps, as happened in Scotland with the referendum, if we give them the opportunity to have their say at an earlier age and if we start to teach more about the political process in our schools, they might understand that by participating they get a greater say in society and their interests may be better met.

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

I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman meets many sixth-formers when he visits schools and finds that they are often extremely well-informed. It is the older generation’s attitude to the younger generation that sometimes leads to young people becoming disillusioned. When knocking on doors during canvassing I often find that young people are very progressive-minded, certainly on matters such as climate change, the poor and poverty in the world.

[Norman Lamb]

I agree, and I think it is condescending in the extreme to suggest that someone aged 17 is not capable of making a decision about, for example—in the context of this Bill—who their local councillor should be, for goodness’ sake. Ultimately, that is what the Conservative party is saying—that they cannot be trusted to vote to elect their local councillor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Lamb and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

T7. Government-inflicted cuts on local government funding and subsequent reductions in adult social care services have increased the pressures of bed-blocking at University hospital Coventry, with a number of patients unable to be discharged as they wait for a nursing home place or a package of care in their own home. Does the Minister agree that this is a problem, and what steps has his Department taken to remedy it? Will he not do the Pontius Pilate act but take responsibility for his actions?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that what happens in social care has an impact on the health service, and the answer has to be to stop seeing them as two separate systems and to look at the whole health and care system. That is why the better care fund is such an incredibly important initiative, pooling a substantial sum of health and care funds, and it must go further so that we end up pooling the entire resource.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Lamb and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

What is the Minister doing to encourage local authorities to provide more places for care, particularly with the reduction in costs? Is he aware that local authorities are finding it difficult, because of Government cuts, to fund those places?

[Norman Lamb]

I am conscious that finances in local government are tight, but the better care fund, which I mentioned just now, has been widely welcomed. I was with a director of adult social care last Friday, who told me that his authority was planning to pool not just its share of the better care fund but the whole of its social care budget with the local health budget. That sort of radical, innovative thinking is exactly what we want and it will ensure that we protect services for vulnerable people.

Thalidomide Trust (Grant)

Debate between Norman Lamb and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

We had a genuine judgment to make. On the one hand, I wanted to provide a good deal of certainty for a lengthy period, but this is a unique group of people. Their health is deteriorating, but we do not yet know what the prognosis is for the rest of their lives. It therefore might have been dangerous to allocate a sum of money for the rest of their lives. For all we know, their needs may grow considerably. It is therefore right to take stock in 10 years’ time and make a judgment on their needs at that stage.

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

I have met victims of thalidomide over many years, and I had the privilege of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Member for North Warwickshire when he introduced the pilot scheme, so I really understand some of the difficulties that the Minister has faced. I therefore congratulate him, as I know that it was a difficult and emotional decision to take. The trust should also be congratulated on its efforts and tenacity over many years.

[Norman Lamb]

As I indicated in my statement, I had to respond to an Adjournment debate on the subject in Westminster Hall on my very first full day in the job. The presence of so many thalidomiders at that debate sent a very powerful message to me about the need for us to face up to our responsibility to support those individuals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Lamb and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

T8. Can the Government clear up the confusion on their own Benches? What part of the Beecroft report do the Government accept, and what part do they reject?

[Norman Lamb]

The Government are implementing many elements of the Beecroft report. In fact, Adrian Beecroft has already had discussions with officials in my Department and his report includes a lot of measures that the Department was already considering implementing. A call for evidence is out on no-fault dismissal, and it is right to examine the international evidence. We will report after that evidence has been collated.