Infected Blood Inquiry
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Jamie Stone(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
I pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their meticulous, forensic and dogged examination of all the evidence, and for their sensitivity to the witnesses. They have helped reveal the truth about 60 years of disastrous policy decisions and individual decisions, including the failure to ensure blood transfusion services are self-sufficient and the failure to switch to safer treatments more quickly. In particular, the inquiry exposed systematic attempts to cover up the scandal.
I am not sure whether the Minister attended any of the hearings but, if he did not, he should watch the video recordings, and maybe he would get the merest hint of the suffering of those infected by contaminated blood and their families. I attended a couple of sessions in London and Edinburgh, and it was harrowing even as an observer, let alone for those who had to recount their experiences and relive their pain. Their bravery and determination were humbling.
The inquiry staff did an incredible job of providing support to the victims who came to bear witness, while Sir Brian ensured that they and their representatives were involved in steering the inquiry to its conclusion, with the final report due in the autumn. While that report will seek to ensure that the lessons from this disaster are learned, one of the key aims of the inquiry is to achieve just compensation for the victims and their families.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution. I spoke this morning to my constituent Robert Ross, whose young life has been blighted and ruined. It struck me hard that it feels so desperately unfair that this happened to somebody. In recent times we have seen a mixture of emotions in this place about the way we do things, but one of the undying principles of British and Scottish politics is a sense of fairness. Let us hope that an equitable solution—one that is seen to be fair to these people—can be found.
Dr Whitford
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. The support right across this Chamber is clear.
Money cannot redress the loss of lives and loved ones, nor the reduction in quality of life caused by illness, stigma or caring responsibilities, but it can at least ease the hardship and financial worries that many families face, particularly at the moment. The Leader of the House, when she was Paymaster General, was the first Minister to accept that responsibility for this disaster lay with the UK Government and that financial compensation was inevitable. She commissioned Sir Robert Francis to develop a compensation framework, which he duly delivered last March. The Government refused to publish it, saying they would only publish it along with their formal response. It was finally published three months later, when it was about to be leaked, but with a mere covering letter and no real commitments. Indeed, the Government have still not responded.
It was only after Sir Brian published the first interim report last July and directed the Government to pay interim compensation payments of £100,000 that we finally saw action. These payments were, however, limited to surviving victims and their partners who were registered with support schemes. Nothing was provided to those who had lost parents or children, or who had spent many years as family carers. This issue is particularly important for HIV-affected families, as three quarters of the victims have already died of AIDS, as have many of their partners. Appallingly, they were often not told their HIV status and unwittingly passed the virus on to their loved ones. After 40 years of denial, cover-up and obstruction, there is little trust in the Government, and ongoing delays are exacerbating that distrust.
More than 560 victims have died since 2017, including 67 partners. If the Government want to rebuild trust, they must now respond to Sir Brian’s report from April, which includes all the recommendations regarding compensation, with urgency and action. I hope the Minister has come with more than the blather we have had to listen to in this Chamber for over a year, and is ready to make it clear that the Government accept all of Sir Brian’s recommendations.
On behalf of all victims, whether infected or affected, we need to know when the chair of the independent compensation body will be appointed. We also need a commitment that victims and their representatives will be included in its development. Victims need to be reassured that the system will not be adversarial, so that the process does not re-traumatise those who have already suffered so much. We need to hear from the Minister how bereaved parents and children will be registered now, so that they can receive interim payments quickly and be included in the final compensation process.
I would love to think that this will be the last debate that is needed to achieve justice for the victims of contaminated blood; sadly, I fear that that will not be the case. With an average of two victims a week losing their lives since that debate in 2017, the Government must surely accept that time is of the essence for these people—enough is enough.
Cost of Living and Brexit
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Jamie Stone(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whitford
It would be a more appropriate response by the Scottish Conservatives to get down on their knees in the Holyrood Chamber and apologise for the abuse they gave the Scottish Government for not following such crazy policies.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I had the honour to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament for some 12 years, and the Minister served in the Scottish Parliament. I know a good deal about the committee system; indeed, I chaired one. Members of the Scottish Parliament who were not members of a committee could come and speak at it—it was almost never not allowed.
I am not a member of any Committee in this place. Given the size of my party, only three of our Members are on Committees. Due to the structure of the proposed Committee, the door would be locked against me applying for a place on it. I feel disenfranchised, and I do not see why my constituents should not be given the chance for their representative to have a voice. I cannot vote for the structure of the Committee as it stands—it is very sloppy work.
Dr Whitford
That is incorrect: there will be Members from the three devolved nations. It will be—as described—a large Committee, which might provide a place for the hon. Member or one of his colleagues from a devolved nation. It is nonsense—there is no exclusion.
Health Inequalities
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Jamie Stone(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Whitford
I do. I respect the work that Labour did, and child poverty was falling. Interestingly, the upturn in child poverty we have seen did not happen with the crash in 2008; it happened after the 2012 welfare changes. That is striking. The impact of Government policy has been austerity in every way and in every approach to individuals, families and communities. We have seen slow income growth for the vast majority of people over the last decade. There has been absolute inequality. The majority of the growth that there has been, has been at the top. The national living wage simply is not a living wage. More people are in insecure work—zero-hours contracts, the gig economy—and do not have protections. As the shadow Health Secretary mentioned, in all the discussion about covid-19, we have been trying to highlight that people on low pay and insecure contracts do not get sick pay, yet we will be asking them to stay at home for two weeks and self-isolate. In the meantime, the wealthiest people have actually trebled their wealth. So categorically we have not all been in it together over the last 10 years.
In addition, we have seen a restriction on public expenditure. The regressive welfare cuts of 2012 and 2016 have reduced support for families by 40%: the benefit cap, the benefits freeze, the two-child limit, the five-week wait for universal credit, which puts people in rent arrears and debt, personal independence payments, the bedroom tax. Eighty per cent. or more of these cuts have affected women directly because they tend to be lower paid, to be carers and to rely more on services. In the main, they are responsible for children. The disabled have also been particularly hard hit. We have not seen a cumulative impact assessment of female lone parents who are disabled and have three or more children. Some of them have had their income slashed.
There have been cuts to local government and services. Interestingly, the least deprived areas face 16% of cuts, while the most deprived on average had 31% cut from their local government budget. I have heard Labour Members talk about between 40% and 60% cuts in their local government budgets. There are changes in the pipeline to move £300 million from local authorities in the north to the south. I wonder if that will be reversed now that the Conservative party has won some seats in the north.
Jamie Stone
Some years ago, when I was a councillor, I had a harrowing case involving a young female constituent who was clobbered by the bedroom tax. She has multiple sclerosis and she was going to lose a lot of cash. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Scottish Government for the action they took to ameliorate and offset that tax.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Member for that recognition. The Scottish Government are spending more than £100 million every year in mitigating some of these cuts—they pay the bedroom tax and they have set up the Scottish welfare crisis fund—but that is money that should be going into devolved areas, not patching up austerity decisions here; it is not the role of the Scottish Parliament just to mitigate.
Public health in England has been cut by £850 million—again, the greatest cuts to the poorest areas—and it is exactly the same with future planned cuts. This has led to cuts in smoking cessation projects. There is no point standing up and talking about the importance of stopping smoking—we all know that. People who have smoked for decades need help to stop and those services are critical. We have also seen cuts to drugs and alcohol projects and to sexual health projects, and all those have an impact on the poorest people.
The Minister, who is no longer in her place, might have listened to Dame Carol at the drugs summit in Glasgow but, sadly, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), did not. He came to Glasgow, made his speech and then left before all the expert evidence was given. We also hear of a social care gap across England of over £6 billion. Again, that affects women if they have to give up work to look after elderly relatives or disabled children. This rolling back of the state has affected the social determinants and increased health inequalities. Child poverty has increased, as we have heard, with 4 million children affected, and 1,000 Sure Start centres have been closed. Education funding is down. There is a housing crisis and therefore a rise in homelessness. People with insufficient funds to afford a healthy life are depending on food banks, and deprived communities are simply losing hope.
Poverty is simply the biggest driver of ill health and has the biggest individual impact on life expectancy. The increase in life expectancy in England has stalled for the first time in 120 years—the first time since 1900. The gap between the most and least deprived has widened: the gap is now almost 10 years for women and the life expectancy of some women in areas of the north-east of England has dropped by almost a year.
GP Recruitment and Retention
Debate between Philippa Whitford and Jamie Stone(6 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Moon.
I declare an interest, in that my other half is a GP. He is German and has been here in our service for 32 years. That highlights a particular problem that we shall face in the next few years because of Brexit. As the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned, GPs are not just gatekeepers, but are the core and heart of general practice, which is where most interactions occur. They specialise in teamwork and continuity. They may know their patients for years and over generations. All UK health services face three key problems. We all face tight budgets and increasing demand because of an ageing population, and the workforce is bringing those things to a head in relatively short order.
There is a drive in Scotland and England to rebalance the proportion of funding that goes towards primary care, to approximately 11% of the budget. With the climbing complexity of cancer care, emergency care, A&E and targets, more money has been moving into secondary and, indeed, tertiary care. The demand is still there. Having worked as a breast cancer surgeon for more than 30 years I can tell the House that we also face shortage and increased demand, so there is no easy solution—but if primary care fails, the entire system fails.
In Scotland the new GP contract was designed by working with the British Medical Association, and at the moment it is in phase 1, which is trying to stabilise the system. Two thirds of practices will have a significant increase in income, and the others will be protected so that no one experiences a fall. Phase 2, which will start next year, is an attempt to consider something a bit more radical. It touches on issues that have been raised by some Members, to do with changing the shape of primary care, and the system. The income of GPs varies hugely. Some practices are immensely profit-making and have a good income. In other areas the GP, despite perhaps working longer hours, may earn £20,000 or £30,000 a year less. That means that the area in question becomes relentlessly harder to recruit to. Consideration is being given to whether there should be a range of income, perhaps similar to what consultants have—an NHS salary.
That is obviously a huge change from the situation at the moment—the independent contractor status. Older GPs who have lived with independent contractor status certainly do not want it to go. They welcome the independence and the ability to design and run their practice as they see fit. However, it is important to recognise that the younger generation feel utterly differently. As has been mentioned, they are not interested in buying into a practice or even, necessarily, in being partners. They are not attracted to the businessman side of being a GP. Therefore we need contracts that do not destroy independent contractor status for those who already have it, or those who want it, but that enable people to work in practices where perhaps the building is provided by the health board, and where they are salaried and can create a more predictable work-life balance.
One of the small-print issues that is arising in England is the fact that no new general medical services contracts have been awarded since 2013; everything has been done on the basis of alternative provider contracts, which means that they are only for five years. It might be attractive to a big multinational to take on a franchise and hope that it gets the contract again; but there is no possibility that a family doctor would be interested in setting up or taking on a practice for a mere five years.
Jamie Stone
I am greatly interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, which is very constructive, good stuff. Would she, at this stage in her planning, factor in the extreme rural issue that I mentioned, in any way?
Dr Whitford
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to that naturally later.
The issue of indemnity has been touched on. I am not sure whether it is realised how extreme the position is. GPs in England are paying three to four times the indemnity that GPs in Scotland are paying. The range in Scotland would be £1,500 to £2,300 on a range of half a dozen to 14 sessions, but in England that would be £5,500 to £9,500. That is a considerable chunk of money to ask of someone, and it is very significant when it comes to taking on the extra weekend surgeries of seven-day working, or out-of-hours work.