Dementia
Debate between Tony Baldry and Madeleine Moon(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry
That was absolutely the case. There are occasions when one is just going to be out of touch on this, but hospitals are changing. When I was young, my father was a consultant and he had three wards. He was responsible for them and each had a sister, who was identifiable and accountable, as were the staff nurses. Everyone was accountable and everyone knew what was happening. Hospitals are changing, and in some ways medical technology means that things move a lot faster: for example, hysterectomies can now be day cases. However, people are staying longer in other parts of hospitals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, a large number of people in hospital are also suffering from dementia, and hospitals, as well as treating the acute problems of such people, need to respond to that. They need to work out where those people go once they leave the hospital. Very often someone’s dementia is not spotted until they are in hospital.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
My mother, too, was a nurse. Sadly, at the end of her life, she ended up in hospital far too frequently, and at the very end she also had dementia. She would say that the nurses would never have been allowed to work on the wards that she worked on, because they treat conditions, not people—that is the problem. They no longer see the person in the bed; they see only the condition. Until that focus moves back to the person and their needs, and away from the condition and the diagnosis, we will not get the change we desperately need.
Sir Tony Baldry
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Many of us took part in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this week on palliative and end-of-life care, when similar points were made. Sadly, all too often, what we read in our national newspapers demonstrates the desperateness that is occurring, as does the fact that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley received 1,000 letters and e-mails in response to her tragic circumstances. This culture change in nursing needs to be reversed, because we must get compassion back into the NHS.
The second point I wished to discuss was carers, as I co-chair the all-party group on carers. It is estimated that 670,000 people in this country have dementia and the number is due to double in the next few years. As has rightly been said, most of us will either suffer from dementia or will know someone who will be a sufferer and so will be a carer at that time. One frustration for carers is that they do not get recognised as being carers, which is extremely frustrating, particularly when they are dealing with the GP of the person they are looking after—their loved one. I intervened on the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) to say that part of that frustration has arisen because GPs have been slightly in denial about people with dementia, because they are not sure what to do with them when they make the diagnosis.
However, I am pleased that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has proposed that GPs should follow three new indicators on caring for people with dementia. First, GP practices should be examined on the
“percentage of patients with dementia with the contact details of a named carer on their record.”
GPs must, therefore, diagnose someone with dementia because otherwise they will not know that they have a carer on their record. The second indicator is:
“The practice has a register of patients who are carers of a person with dementia.”
The third indicator is:
“The percentage of carers (of a person with dementia) who have had an assessment of their health and support needs in the preceding 12 months.”
There was criticism in some of the national press of the Prime Minister’s determination to ensure that people get a proper diagnosis of dementia if they are suffering from it, but unless people get such a diagnosis—unless GPs face up to the fact that their patients have dementia and start to care also about the carers of these people, by making sure that they get carers, assessments and so on—we will never get the qualitative and quantitative changes in how society is run to allow us to face up to a revolution, which has happened in the lifetime of many of us, in the number of people living in our society with dementia. This issue is going to grow.
I was very impressed by what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles said about Salford being a dementia-friendly community; many of us must go back to our constituencies and look at the challenge dementia poses, because, in comparison, my patch is simply in the foothills of that. Over the next few years, we will all have to try to make sure that we have dementia-friendly communities.
Housing (CSR)
Debate between Tony Baldry and Madeleine MoonWestminster 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
Tony Baldry
The point that I am trying to make is that at present we have an artificial division in the housing market. On housing estates in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine, families that would have been the anchors of traditional 1950s estates on which those of our age grew up—working families from Cowley and so on—find themselves in an insecure position as assured shorthold tenants. Whether the categories of tenancies and tenants are endurable in the 21st century is a legitimate debate. I am trying to understand exactly what the Government are proposing. I am seeking knowledge, because our councillors and constituents will soon come to us asking for an explanation, and I would like to be able to provide one.
That takes me to housing benefit, and I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government say that the Government intend to increase rents in both the private rented sector and, particularly, the social sector, to nearer 80% of market rents, but families will be able to access housing benefit. I am not clear about this; I need an explanation of the suggestion that a greater return from housing investment would attract more investors from the private sector—banks and so on. That may be a worthwhile objective, but if that is funded by housing benefit, I do not understand how it will reduce the housing benefit bill. I want to understand how those two policy imperatives relate.
When public finances are tight, we cannot pretend that we can do as Harold Macmillan was able to do in the halcyon days of the 1950s and build as many new homes as we want. Sadly, that option is not available to us, but if we are not to have a frustrating non-debate, the more information that the Government can provide about what is intended, the better.
Tony Baldry
I am about to finish, because I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak.
The Government have given a lot of information about the new homes bonus, and I think we all understand it. What we now want to understand is: what is intended for the relationship between social tenants and private sector tenants; how the Government will go forward; the nature of the various new tenancies, including under the affordable rent scheme; and how housing benefit rules will relate to those who pay higher rents, so that we can attract investors into the housing market.