| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 July 2007 : Column 125WH—continued
The CIB recognises the uncertainty felt by those affected by the closure of First Solution, and it is working as quickly as possible to reach conclusions and making steady progress. Obviously, it needs to be thorough, so it is unable to give a precise time for the completion of its investigations, but it is fully aware of the need to progress as swiftly and thoroughly as possible.
I also realise that the uncertainty must be difficult for those who have been affected by the case, and that they will understandably be frustrated that First Solution’s voluntary liquidation means that there is no firm time frame in which they might find out when, or if, money can be reclaimed from the company’s remaining assets, which is, of course, theoretically possible.
Anne Main: Many of us have constituents who are affected by this, and they need to know what to do next. I should be grateful if the Minister would outline the importance of registering their loss with the liquidator, so that they do not merely attend meetings where everyone tells them what a dreadful thing this is, but not where to go next. I know that Members in the Chamber today have met representatives from those groups who keep going to meetings but are uncertain what to do next.
Kitty Ussher: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning that point. I was just coming to the two things that the people who are affected should do. First, as I laid out in last week’s written ministerial statement, they should register their interests with the insolvency practitioners who are the liquidators. The most recent information is that a liquidator has not yet been formally appointed, although that may have changed recently, but the company has told us that it intends to appoint as liquidator Panos Eliades, Franklin and Co., and the telephone number 020 8815 4000 was given in my ministerial statement. As a first step, potentially affected people should register their interest there. If assets can be returned to them, the liquidators will ensure that they are in the right place in the queue for that.
The second matter is the charitable response. With my whole heart, I want to say how delighted I am that the Sir William Beveridge Foundation has independently agreed to provide a charitable response. A helpline is in the process of being established—I understand that the number has been agreed, but that BT has not formally connected it. We will make that public next week, and everyone, all over the country, who feels that they should be eligible for a charitable response, should contact that charity, which has its own processes for checking who is eligible and who is not. It is an established organisation and I am delighted that it has come forward in these sad circumstances. The foundation will be seeking corporate and individual donations. I do not know who it is contacting, but the hon. Gentleman had some sensible suggestions. I shall certainly encourage the foundation to seek the widest possible donations to provide a substantial fund.
I am sure that we will all want to thank Baroness Uddin for her role in setting up the support fund, as well as the many others who have been involved—I know that an ad hoc advisory group set itself up—
Margaret Moran:
As a member of the ad hoc advisory group, I stress that the criteria that will be used to determine eligibility will be determined by the
charitable trust, not by politicians or others. Will the Minister acknowledge that although this tragedy affects the Bangladeshi community because of this company, it is important that we explain to others from other communities who use money transfer agencies—there are many others, including in my constituency—that they need to be sure about the terms on which they are using the agencies?
Kitty Ussher: Those are extremely important points. The independence of the charity is crucial and it is important to point out to individual constituents the need to be vigilant and to check the status of the companies with which they transact, although I understand that it is difficult to do so. I am about to move on to the issue of regulation, but I have one final word on the charitable response. It is clear in my mind—I have said this privately to the hon. Gentleman—that as a Government, our response to this tragic situation should be the same as our response to Farepak. In that case, we were delighted to say that the Family Fund set up a charitable response, and in this case we are delighted to see that the Sir William Beveridge Foundation has taken up the mantle. I shall encourage my constituents to get in touch, and I hope that all hon. Members will do the same. It might be a couple of days before we have the final details in place, although I stand to be corrected by members of the ad hoc advisory group.
The fund will provide immediate support, I hope, to those who have been affected in this incident, but I know that we are all concerned about ways of preventing closures like this in the future. Even before the situation was known, the Government had committed to regulate money transfer companies under the payment services directive, which we agreed the terms of and negotiated on behalf of the UK at a European level earlier this year.
The directive will require money transfer operators to be subject to financial regulation. It will introduce a prudential authorisation regime for these companies, which will be tiered according to the size of the operators.
It will also provide, where appropriate, for customers’ funds to be ring-fenced from other creditors’ in the event of insolvency. Furthermore, all operators must abide by new conduct-of-business rules, which concern the provision of adequate information to customers to ensure that there is transparency about the services that customers receive. There are also liability requirements, to provide greater legal certainty for customers in the event, for example, that a payment transaction goes wrong.
We will be publishing a consultation document on the implementation of the directive later this year. I encourage all those who have been involved with the First Solution experience to respond to that, and we will be seeking views from all interested stakeholders on how we can implement it most effectively, taking into account the Government’s better regulation agenda. We will also take into account lessons learned from First Solution.
Regulation is not fail-safe. It cannot guarantee that firms will not become insolvent or misbehave, and it will always need to be complemented by customer vigilance, good corporate practice and genuine competition in the marketplace. We believe that if it had been in place, that would have been a better framework than the one that we have.
I want to mention the role of the Department for International Development in supporting from the other side the role of money transfer companies. We have set up a remittances and payments partnership project with the central bank of Bangladesh to improve the speed and security with which migrants are able to remit funds home. We also fund the UK remittances taskforce to promote greater transparency and competition, and better information in the UK remittances market.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a couple of other points. I heard what he said about Ofcom, which is an independent body and so it is up to it to decide what to do. I am sure that it is aware and is investigating the representations that have been made. In the last few seconds—
John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.
Manorlands Hospice (Oxenhope)
5 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): I should like to talk about the funding of the Sue Ryder Care hospice in Oxenhope. I was first going to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but she is not here yet. I am afraid that there has been some confusion. Anyhow, I congratulate her on her recent appointment as a Minister in the Department of Health. No other person would have been as appropriate to do the job.
I am sure that every Member of the House has a particular charitable body or organisation in their constituency that attracts a special fondness. In Keighley, the Sue Ryder Care Manorlands hospice in Oxenhope has a special place in the hearts of my constituents. Perhaps that is due to the hospice’s incredible work. Manorlands has a 16-bed, specialist palliative care unit, providing consultant-led, specialist nursing and care services; a palliative care community team that transfers the hospice’s expertise into the community, including at a palliative care drop-in centre in Keighley; a day therapy unit enabling people living with a terminal illness to access expertise and services from the comfort of their own homes; and a bereavement and counselling service providing care and support to families and carers before and after someone dies.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Cummings. I am sorry, but we do not have a Minister here. The whole point of an Adjournment debate is that a Minister can reply.
John Cummings (in the Chair): I understand that the Minister is on her way and that it is in order for the debate to continue without her.
Mr. Curry: Of what purpose is that, then? What is the point without a Minister? [Interruption.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ann Keen): I apologise for my lateness, Mr. Cummings.
John Cummings (in the Chair): It has been a rather peculiar afternoon with Divisions.
Mrs. Cryer: Perhaps the fondness for Manorlands is due to the professionalism and care of the staff who work there. Anyone who has any contact with Manorlands, as a patient or carer, is deeply impressed by the level of care, with dignity, that is provided. Perhaps it is also because of the stunningly beautiful surroundings in Oxenhope, a place that brings a tranquillity, comfort and dignity that every one of us deserves in our final weeks of life.
Perhaps it could be because of the holistic approach, which is the ethos of Manorlands and of all Sue Ryder Care’s hospices. Manorlands’ vision of “care that liberates life” means that it cares for a person’s physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs, and is dedicated to ensuring that people get the best from their lives while living with chronic and terminal conditions and illnesses.
I believe that the fondness is due to the extent of the expertise offered at Manorlands through its consultant-led palliative care team, which incorporates specialist nurses who care for people not just in the hospice but in the community. Also, the hospital does not just care for people with cancer but is part of a charity that specialises
in providing neurological care and support for people living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, Huntingdon’s disease, brain injury and dementia.
Whatever the reason for the fondness, there can be no doubt that Sue Ryder Care’s Manorlands is vital to the people of Keighley and the surrounding areas. However, as is always the case, there is a price to pay. Along with the hospice and the voluntary sector in general, I realise that funds are not infinite. There is not a bottomless pit, and a simple wish list of demands is not realistic. In this case, Manorlands is not campaigning for something that is unrealistic or exaggerated; it is simply asking for what is proportionate and should be due. The statutory commissioners should pay the true cost of the services that they purchase.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and on all the work that she does in supporting Manorlands, which, as she well knows, is close to the hearts of my constituents. I know that a lot of her constituents, like a lot of mine, raise considerable funds for Manorlands and put an awful lot of effort into doing so. Does she agree that it is only fitting, given their efforts, for primary care trusts not just in our area but in North Yorkshire to pay their fair share to enable Manorlands to continue to give the high-quality service that she mentioned?
Mrs. Cryer: That is the very point that made me decide to seek the debate, and I shall come to it.
The basic principle is vital. Sue Ryder Care, as highlighted in its “We Care: Who Pays?” campaign, is paying £7 million a year to cover statutory shortfalls in funding. Six million pounds of that is for palliative care, which means that voluntary donations, instead of being used to develop much-needed new and innovative services, are plugging the gap between what the PCTs and social services pay and the real cost of providing care.
I welcome the Government’s support for the hospice movement and palliative care in general. The additional £50 million made available for specialist palliative care for adults has made a real difference, and the announcement in April that a further £40 million was to be allocated as capital funding for the refurbishment of adult hospices, which has assisted 146 hospices, was particularly welcome. I also appreciate the position of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). He stated in a written answer on 8 May:
“The level of public funding a hospice receives is a matter for local negotiation between the local primary care trust (PCT), who are responsible for commissioning and funding palliative care services locally, and the hospice. We are currently developing an adult End of Life Care Strategy, which will consider funding for adult hospices and other adult end of life care services.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 149W.]
The difficulty, however, for Manorlands and other hospices is what appears to be a lack of transparency in how different PCTs fund the care.
I appreciate the fact that, as part of the end-of-life care strategy, PCTs have been asked to undertake a baseline review of their end-of-life care services, and should therefore determine the true cost of providing end-of-life care, but organisations such as Manorlands face uncertainty about funding. In negotiations at the
local level with PCTs, Manorlands must operate within the parameters given. Indeed, in “Improving financial relationships with the third sector: Guidance to funders and purchasers”, produced by the Treasury in 2006, it was suggested:
“There is no reason why service procurers should disallow the inclusion of relevant overhead costs in bids. Furthermore, funders or purchasers should not flatly reject or refuse to fund fully costed bids. Funding bodies must recognise that it is legitimate for third sector organisations to recover the appropriate level of overhead costs associated with the provision of a particular service.”
The Charity Commission, in its report of 2005, “Policy Statement on Charities and Public Service Delivery”, argued:
“Trustees have a duty to use charity assets as effectively as possible. Charities should always aim to recover the full cost of delivering services for public authorities, including administrative and overhead or ‘core’ costs. It is reasonable for a charity to expect an authority to fund its full costs. Full cost recovery is supported by government policy, as set out in the Compact and its good practice code on funding and procurement.
We recognise that, in practice, many charities struggle to obtain full cost recovery. This is a matter of concern for both the sector and the Commission.”
However, Manorlands is not seeking full recovery. The cost in 2006 to Manorlands of providing service to 640 patients and their families was a little short of £2 million. Seventy-six per cent. of the patients were referred to Manorlands from within the boundaries of the Bradford and Airedale PCT. For that service, the PCT paid Manorlands £640,000. Twenty-four per cent. of the patients lived within the boundaries of the North Yorkshire and York PCT. No agreement has yet been concluded on payment by the PCT, but it appears that something in the order of £140,000 may be forthcoming.
Manorlands is not seeking 100 per cent. recovery, as it realises that commissioners are not able or willing to purchase all of its services. That is why Sue Ryder Care is a charity and so can use vital voluntary funds to pay for valuable additional services such as bereavement care, which makes a real difference to families and bereaved carers. In the interim, it is requesting 50 per cent. recovery from two PCTs that commission its specialist service. However, the Bradford and Airedale PCT falls short of the 50 per cent. threshold by £120,000, achieving just 87 per cent. of the target, while the North Yorkshire and York PCT falls short by £110,000, at just 54 per cent. of its target of 50 per cent. total recovery.
When Manorlands first raised the issue with me, I was told of the reluctance of the North Yorkshire and York PCT to discuss the matter. Appreciating the demands on PCTs, I was sure that there was a perceived, not a definite, reluctance. However, although I have finally managed to organise a date to meet the chief executive, I, too, have experienced such reluctance. I very much hope, however, that when I do meet the chief executive early next month, the discussion will prove to be more constructive.
I am sure that Members of the House will appreciate my personal and particular interest in matters associated with palliative care. Anyone who has experienced the ravages of a terminal or chronic illness, either as a patient or as a carer, will appreciate the value of specialist, holistic care and support. From a purely financial point
of view, the last chapter in someone’s life can be the most expensive to the various agencies involved. A coherent and well-funded palliative care strategy is vital for any PCT if it is to avoid expensive increases in unscheduled admissions to hospital, longer lengths of hospital stay and discomfort to patients. Failure to ensure that Manorlands can effectively provide the service that it specialises in would be a false economy.
More important than the financial argument, perhaps, is the question of emotional well-being and dignity. My second late husband, John, chose in his last few weeks to be at home. Palliative care was provided through the Bradford Hospice at Home team, which included excellent input from Macmillan nurses. We were also given night-time care, which helped enormously. Towards the end, it was John’s decision to be moved to the hospice nearest to our home, the wonderful Marie Curie hospice in Bradford. It is that experience that allows me to understand and appreciate what Manorlands specialises in and must be allowed to continue doing.
Neither I nor Manorlands is making wild demands for funding from a limited and stretched pot. We recognise the Government’s commitment to palliative care and to the voluntary sector, but the lack of clarity regarding the funding arrangements of PCTs needs to be addressed and resolved. Manorlands delivers its services free. Whatever the PCTs commission but fail to pay for has to be met through donations and the excellent fund-raising events organised by the dedicated staff at Manorlands and the volunteers in the two other constituencies concerned. Surely it is only proportionate and fair that PCTs should budget for at least 50 per cent. of the services that have been provided.
I appreciate the Government’s stance that such matters be negotiated locally, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that direction needs to be given to ensure that PCTs do, indeed, act fairly, and thus that Sue Ryder Care Manorlands hospice will, as I hope, be able to continue to provide exemplary service for so many people.
5.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ann Keen): I thank you, Mr. Cummings, and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I apologise for my late arrival. A large number of people were leaving the Chamber, and it proved impossible to get through the crowd in time. I hope that hon. Members will accept that apology. I congratulate my dear hon. Friend on presenting her case with her usual courage and dignity. I am sure that all Members felt for her as she expressed herself as she did. I would like to pay tribute to the 1.3 million staff who work for the national health service, in particular the staff in the Bradford and Airedale area who have made an enormous contribution to improving the local NHS.
The hospice movement is close to me, too. As a former nurse, I have spent some time working in hospices and received some excellent training there. Cicely Saunders, the founder of the hospice movement and of the first hospice, St. Christopher’s, said that society should be judged by how it treats its very young, its very old, its sick, its poor and its dying. She said:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |