Contaminated Blood
Debate between Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford and Andy Burnham(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for securing this debate, his last in the House, on what is a very important issue, not just for him and his constituents, but for many other Members and their constituents. I would like, in particular, to pay tribute to the courage of all the victims who have allowed their stories to be told today. The value of this, in reminding us why we are all here and in driving us to find the best solutions to this very difficult issue, cannot be overestimated. We should all take a moment to remember that.
That is exactly why the Government have introduced the infected blood payment scheme, alongside the commitment of up to £150 million up to 2020-21 for all those affected. It will more than double the annual spending during that time. I am sure, though, that the whole House will share my view that nothing can make up for the suffering and the loss that families have experienced, and no financial support can change what has happened to them, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I hope, however, that all those here today will recognise that the support provided is hugely important for those facing such significant medical challenges and is materially more than any previous Administration have provided, and recognise that it is a measure of how seriously the Government take the issue.
I would also like to take a moment to clarify some issues to do with the consultation, because there has been confusion about it in recent weeks. The consultation response announced on 13 July 2016 introduced for the first time an annual payment for all individuals affected with HIV or chronic hepatitis C through NHS-supplied blood or blood products. The recent consultation, which closed on 17 April 2017, asked for comments on the special category mechanism. This mechanism will allow those with hepatitis C stage 1 who consider their infection or its treatment to have a substantial or long-term adverse impact on their ability to carry out routine daily activities to apply for the higher annual payment, which is equivalent to the annual payment received by beneficiaries with hepatitis C stage 2 disease, such as those with cirrhotic liver and its complications, or those infected with HIV. We anticipate that a significant proportion of stage 1 beneficiaries will benefit from the new process and the higher annual payment it will offer.
Those co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C stage 1 will also be eligible to apply through the SCM. Those co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C stage 2 already receive the higher annual payments for both infections. The consultation proposes, however, that those payments will not increase in 2018, as originally set out in the 2016 consultation response. The recent consultation also included a question on the type of discretionary support that beneficiaries would find most useful. We remain keen to ensure fairness of support between all beneficiaries, based on need and individual circumstances. We have had consultation submissions, but we have to consider them over the purdah period. We cannot make decisions until after that.
I wanted to make those points before turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about a further inquiry. As he will know from a number of previous debates on the issue, the Government have been clear that we do not at this point believe that a further inquiry would be beneficial, because there have been previous inquiries. I would like to say a little about why those inquiries were quite useful. Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Penrose have already separately undertaken independent inquiries in the last decade. Neither inquiry found the Governments of the day to have been at fault and they did not apportion blame.
The Penrose inquiry began in 2009, when the right hon. Gentleman was himself the Health Secretary. In the course of the inquiry, evidence was taken over nearly 90 days of oral hearings, resulting in more than 13,000 pages of transcript, in addition to 200 witness statements and more than 120,000 other documents.
Andy Burnham
I accept that there have been two inquiries—Penrose was commissioned by the Scottish Government—but it is not acceptable for the Government to point to Archer. That was not a Government-backed inquiry. It did not have access to all the Government papers. The Minister cannot use that as an excuse or say, “We don’t need an inquiry because of Archer.”
Nicola Blackwood
That is why I was speaking about Penrose. The final report from the inquiry was published as recently as March 2015 and includes an appendix that lists witnesses and many of the most significant statements and reports that the inquiry considered. Although the Department of Health was not called to provide witnesses to the Penrose inquiry, it co-operated fully with Lord Penrose’s requests for documentary evidence, and the departmental evidence that Lord Penrose used is referenced in his final report. Lord Penrose published the report of his public inquiry into infections acquired in Scotland on 25 March 2015. Nothing was withheld. Any redacted documents provided to the inquiry were redacted in line with both standard practice to protect personal information and current freedom of information requirements.
Nicola Blackwood
The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point. However, given the release of Government papers that has already taken place and the numerous statements made about the issue by Ministers in both Houses, it is hard to understand how an independent panel would add to current knowledge about how infections happened, or the steps taken to deal with the problem. As with a public inquiry, the Government believe at this point that setting up such a panel would detract from the work that we are doing to support sufferers and their families without providing any tangible benefit.
Nicola Blackwood
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to proceed to the next paragraph, which I think he will want to hear?
Let me now turn to the evidence that the right hon. Gentleman has presented today, with a great deal of passion. He will appreciate that I have not seen that evidence; this is the first that I have heard of it, so I have had no chance to give it proper consideration. He will also be aware that we are now entering the pre-election period, and that we are therefore in purdah. I ask him please to submit his dossier to the Secretary of State for Health, and also to Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is the Minister responsible for this area of policy. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman does indeed have evidence of criminality, he should contact the police, but I want him to be aware that the Health Secretary has made patient safety, learning from mistakes and transparency key personal priorities, and I am sure that if the papers hold the concerning matters to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, he will give them the highest priority.
I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s sincerity. He knows a great deal about this issue, because it was live when he was Health Secretary, and I appreciate the apology that he has made to victims today. I must, however, ask him to recognise that we are taking action on what is an undeniably difficult and complex issue, and trying to get things right for the victims who have waited far too long for action. I also ask him to recognise that we are acting with the best of intentions, even if he disagrees with the way in which we are doing so.
Let me end by offering the right hon. Gentleman my very best wishes for his future. He has left an indelible mark on British politics, and I am sure that he will experience great success in that future, wherever it may be.
NHS Services (Access)
Debate between Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford and Andy Burnham(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham
That is inaccurate, because it was not a private-only shortlist—there was an NHS bidder in the frame at the time. The hon. Gentleman needs to keep his facts straight. As I said earlier, I introduced the NHS preferred provider principle, and that is my policy. [Interruption.] If he wants to dispute that, then the facts will speak for themselves. The shortlist had public and private on it.
Nicola Blackwood
The shadow Secretary of State is being very generous, and I hope that he will respond to me in a non-partisan way. I speak as the daughter of two NHS workers and as somebody who has recently had a very close family member survive an emergency operation for a life-threatening illness. Will he clarify Labour’s position on what it would do in government about a reorganisation, because the difference between a restructuring and a reorganisation is not clear to me? The British Medical Association and GP leaders have been very concerned about exactly what the policy is and what it would mean, so will he make that clear? He has been criticising certain policies, and I would like to understand what his policy would be.
Andy Burnham
I am glad that the hon. Lady asked that—it is a very fair question. I imagine that a reorganisation is the last thing that people in the NHS would want right now. My definition of a structural reorganisation is where we stand down a whole set of organisations and then create a whole set of new ones. I have been very clear that I will not do what the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) did. I will work with the organisations that I inherit. I will work with CCGs, and with health and wellbeing boards, in particular. Health and wellbeing boards were one of the few good things that came out of the Act, because they are a partnership between local government and the NHS, and that is something I can work with. She asked a fair question and I hope I have given her a fair answer. A structural reorganisation where we make everybody redundant again and recreate organisations will not help anybody. In fact, if the Government wanted GP-led commissioning, they should simply have put doctors in charge of the old primary care trusts. If they had done that, they would have saved a lot of money and a lot of heartache in the process.
I am going to finish on NHS funding. The letter I mentioned at the beginning called for a long-term spending plan for the NHS. The NHS Confederation has put that at £2 billion a year. At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister committed to maintaining the ring fence for health in the next Parliament, but experts are clear that that will not be enough to prevent the NHS from tipping into a full-blown crisis. Indeed, the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), has said:
“Maintaining the ring-fence on health spending is not enough.”
I am sure the hon. Lady is right, but her problem—and the problem for everyone on the Conservative Benches—is that they have chosen a different spending priority. They have given a commitment to tax cuts for higher earners, which will cost an unfunded £7 billion. What that means in reality is that if the Tories get back in, any spare money will go towards filling that black hole and there will be nothing left for the NHS, so the outlook for the NHS under the Tories in the next Parliament is very bleak indeed. Given current policy direction on competition and the funding plans they have announced, the NHS is looking at a toxic combination of cuts and privatisation under a re-elected Tory Government.
By contrast, Labour’s priority is not tax cuts for some, but a strong NHS for all. We have found an extra £2.5 billion a year—that is not spin; it is money we have committed to—to build the NHS of the future, and the question before the House tonight is whether it should call on the Government to match it.
Labour’s plan is for a national health and care service—full integration of health and social care, starting in the home and building one team around the person. We will do that by recruiting 20,000 more nurses, 3,000 more midwives, 8,000 more GPs and 5,000 extra home care workers by the end of the next Parliament—a new generation work force in the NHS, working from home to hospital, transforming the delivery of care. Social care is prevention, and by uniting it with the NHS we can turn the financial tide around and place the system on a path towards financial sustainability.
Labour has a credible plan for the NHS and the money to back it up. This House needs to decide tonight whether it agrees and whether it is prepared to match the money needed to turn the NHS around. The decision we make tonight will clarify the decision before the country next May. Will our top priority be, as the PM used to say, those three letters: NHS? Or will it be tax cuts for some, but an NHS crisis for all? That is the choice. We have made ours and our choice is the NHS.