| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sandra Gidley (Romsey) (LD):
I am afraid that, owing to limited time, I shall be unable to respond in detail to some points that have been made. However, I will say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that it would probably help if he listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), because a number of his questions were answered in my hon. Friend's speech.
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1227
It was clear from the length of time for which the hon. Gentleman spoke that, although the Conservatives may have some sort of pensions policy, its bearing on women was an afterthought. It seems to have been a case of "We have a problem; what are we going to do?" I have little to add to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who highlighted the considerable flaws in the Conservatives' policy.
I want my winding-up speech to supplement the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, who has long recognised the particular problems faced by older women and has carried out a huge amount of campaigning work on the subject, particularly on the injustice of the married women's stamp. He has highlighted the fact that many of those women did not know that they were signing away their rights to a pension. A generation of women thought that they would be looked after in their old age only to find out that that was far from the case.
Within that context, the self-congratulatory nature of the Government amendment is particularly distasteful. The motion might just have been acceptable one year into the new Government, but it appears that they believe that it is something to brag about, even though the Government admit that it will be next year before they even report on women pensioners, let alone do anything about it. I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar had to highlight the work of the Fawcett Society before it became an issue that the Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged. I am delighted that has happened now, but why could it not have happened six years ago? I sometimes despair.
The rest of the Prime Minister's amendment fudges the other issues mentioned in our motion in similar fashion, but I want to concentrate on the health of older women. Groups of pensioners will talk at length about their pensions. It is something that they are rightly indignant about, interested in and engaged in, but once that discussion is out of the way, other issues come to the fore. Our motion could have been much longer, but we wanted to focus on a few specific issues.
The Government happily announce in their amendment that 99 per cent. of NHS trusts provide single-sex accommodation for planned admissions and they give themselves a big pat on the back for that. That simple statement is a masterpiece of deception and I want to draw the House's attention to Prime Minister's Question Time on 19 November 1996. The then Leader of the Opposition—now our Prime Minister—asked the then Prime Minister:
"Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?"—[Official Report, 19 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 831.]
We should note that there was no mention of planned admissions or sleeping accommodation. If that issue was worthy of righteous indignation as long ago as 1996, why is such a simple measure taking so long to achieve?
Naturally enough, when the Labour Government came to power—I was pleased that the Tories were no more—the then Secretary of State for Health took the expected action. He blamed the Tories. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1228
"As far as we can see, under the programme that they left us with, in very many hospitals there was no possibility of eliminating mixed-sex wards in the 20th century. We will speed up that process."—[Official Report, 20 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 492.]
The Tories at least had their much maligned patients charter, which made it clear to patients that they had the right, except in emergencies, to be told whether they would be in a ward for men and women. It was stated that in all cases people should "expect" single-sex washing and toilet facilities. It also clearly stated:
"If you would prefer to be cared for in single sex accommodation (either a single sex ward or 'bay' area within a larger ward which offers equal privacy) your wishes will be respected wherever possible."
We all know that the patients charter disappeared to be replaced by something called "Your NHS", which was by no means as specific about patients' rights in this matter.
The amendment before us today says absolutely nothing about washing facilities. It may not be a big issue compared with pensions, but I shall explain why it is a big issue for some people. I can assume only that the Government do not believe that single-sex facilities are important or even desired by elderly people in hospital.
I visited Southampton general hospital only last week. It is an excellent hospital in many ways, but I was surprised to find that the toilet bays were often not single sex. There were male and female cubicles side by side, but before a male could access the male toilet, he had to walk past the washing area, which was screened off only by a very flimsy curtain, offering absolutely no privacy whatever.
I suspect that many other hospitals provide similar facilities, so I assume that that shows that the Government are interested only in sleeping accommodation, and that they are not concerned about the wider picture.
The sad thing is that in many cases it is not a question of extra money. With a little thought, the problems could be solved by rearranging the existing infrastructure, but hospitals are so fixated on hitting every Government target that they simply do not deem such issues to be high priority. I can understand that: if I worked in Southampton general hospital, I would want to keep my job too.
People who think that this is not such a big issue should speak to a constituent of mine. I shall not reveal her name so as to protect her privacy, but she was placed on a mixed-sex ward in the Royal South Hants hospital in Winchester. I am not complaining about the original placement, as it was an emergency, but she was still there after several days, even though she had asked repeatedly to be moved, and even though one of the male patients kept on exposing himself to her. That is totally unacceptable, and it should not have happened to my constituent or to any other patient.
The Minister may say that the national service framework for older people is in place, and that NSF standard 1 reduces discrimination. When the NSF was launched, Professor Ian Philp, the national director for older people's services said:
"The NSF will mean that a person can expect to receive high-quality care and treatment, regardless of their age or whether they live. This will make age discrimination a thing of the past. Older people will be treated as individuals, with respect and dignity".
My constituent saw no evidence of dignity. Hers may have been an extreme case, and one that I hope is not replicated widely, but mixed-sex toilets and washing facilities do not provide dignity either. I urge the Government to ensure that what happens in hospitals reflects their rhetoric. I hope that they will change the words that they use to produce the right results.
The House should not just take my word for this. A recent Mind report entitled "Wardwatch" stated that 23 per cent. of recent and current in-patient respondents had been accommodated in mixed-sex wards. A further 31 per cent. of respondents did not have access to single-sex bathroom facilities.
Disappointingly, the Government's response was to belittle the report. They should take seriously the problems highlighted in it, and find out what is going wrong. Professor Philp stated also that age discrimination was a thing of the past, and that is the impression that the Government also like to portray. Therefore, I shall talk briefly about the most prominent example of age discrimination in the NHS—the cut-off age for breast cancer screening.
The cut-off age was 65, and I am delighted that the Government are to raise that to 70 by the end of the year, but that is for people who are routinely invited for screening by the NHS and it completely ignores the fact that 40 per cent. of breast cancer cases involve women over 70. That is bad enough, but it also promotes the dangerous misconception among older women that they have a decreased risk of contracting breast cancer. Therefore, although women over that age may request screening, the low level of awareness of the risk means that tumours may not be detected until it is too late.
According to the Breakthrough Breast Cancer research centre, the most important risk factor is age. Many consultants have gone on record to say that increasing the cut-off age to 80 would be a cost-effective measure.
In 2002, 6,320 women aged 70 and over died from breast cancer. That is more than 55 per cent. of the total number of women of all ages who died as a result of breast cancer in the same year. Who knows how the numbers might have changed if the screening had been available?
That is just one example of discrimination, and it is Liberal Democrat policy to outlaw the denial of treatment on the basis of absolute age barriers. We would also require the NHS executive to issue national guidance to tackle the problem of discrimination on the grounds of age.
The Government deny that age discrimination exists, but Age Concern has received reports of both implicit and explicit age discrimination at all levels in the NHS. It issued a report in 2000, but little seems to have changed since. Despite the lip service paid by the Government to age discrimination, many people know that the problem is a real one.
To sum up, the Liberal Democrats are tackling the issues that affect pensioners. Our proposals to axe the council tax have not been mentioned today, but they would benefit 70 per cent. of pensioners, and our pension proposals would tackle the particular problems faced by older women.
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1230
There are other problems, but we cannot do everything at once. There is still a huge mountain to climb. Above all, however, we will be serious when in government about eliminating age discrimination in all its forms.
6.50 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |