House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Jul 1993

Column 1200

"any necessary procedures in relation to personal records should be decided locally."

I mention these points just to illustrate the very strange proposals emanating from that committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will indicate that he has taken careful note of what I have had to say.

9.30 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : I am delighted that a number of my hon. Friends followed my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) by trying to make positive and constructive contributions. Several Conservative Members have done likewise. I was at a loss to know why the Government should have sought a debate on this topic, as their recent record is so poor. I hoped that the purpose was to offer a new analysis, a new understanding, and to announce a new set of proposals for action. We did not hear that from the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate. However, among Opposition Members, hope springs eternal. We continue to hope that we shall hear, in the Minister of State's winding-up speech, evidence of a positive approach.

The Minister should listen to the warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) with regard to the approach that should be adopted to the police. The hon. Gentleman should listen also to the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and to that of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who rightly asked that we treat not just the symptom--the crime itself--but values in society, and said that he accepted a share of the responsibility. I disagree with some of his analysis, but I welcome his constructive contribution to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) talked about having spent time with a police officer, so she spoke from experience. I have done likewise, having been with the police through the night in the centre of Cardiff. That experience makes one realise just how thin is the blue line that looks after the interests of the public at night in our great cities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made a very forceful rejection of what seems to be a concerted effort by the Conservative party to make the police the whipping-boys for the Government's failure to tackle crime.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) referred, from direct experience, to projects that work and to the motivation of young people. I have had direct experience of such projects. The truth is that most young people do not need to be offenders, that they can be challenged into constructive behaviour--and could be so challenged, up and down the land, were the opportunities and facilities available. With that diversion, we could concentrate the machinery of punishment and incarceration on those who refuse to give up their criminal and anti-social activity, instead of, as now, having to address youngsters who, given the right opportunity, could be attracted out of that way of life.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South referred also to reparation, either directly to the victim or indirectly to the community. It is with some regret that I have to say that that proposal was made recently by the

Column 1201

Labour party during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill but was rejected by the Minister and his Conservative colleagues.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) wanted to know what had changed since 1970. Well, he has aged a little since he has been in this place. I started in youth work at that time, and a year later I became a magistrate. I saw a decade of progress, and then I saw things become perceptibly worse under Mrs. Thatcher. It angered me to see hope stolen from young people, hope stolen from families with the loss of housing cash in local areas, and hope stolen from communities. I cannot go too wide in my speech, but the Government must make the connection between their policies and rising crime over the past 14 years.

The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who courteously gave a reason for leaving the Chamber, gave a devastating indictment of the past decade. He warned the House that vigilantes will move in and society will break down. He referred to the shortage of youth workers. Many of our local authorities have been devastated by the pressure that is put on them to cut back on non-statutory responsibilities such as youth work because of the inadequacy of support from the Government. There is a clear place where the responsibility for that development must lie.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly set out the effect of the decline in areas such as apprenticeships. I agree that the loss of opportunity for some youngsters on our great housing estates to train in the services has been a devastating loss recently, as has been the loss of schemes which sought constructively to work with young people and which often succeeded in motivating them.

I draw the attention of the Minister to reports published on the links between those who break the law, unemployment and multiple debt. That is no excuse for crime. However, I say to the Government : for God's sake-- understand the connection and the way in which the environment for crime is being developed and encouraged.

The Home Secretary gave a simplistic four-point strategy for tackling crime. The problem is that the Government have failed badly on each of the four elements. First, the Home Secretary said that we need to prevent crime. I strongly support the expansion of neighbourhood watch schemes and welcome the additional number of special constables. But that is no substitute for proper support for the professional police service. The Home Secretary fails the test of seriousness. Clearly, he does not understand the nature of the problem ; nor does he make the same connections as those of the right hon. Member for Brent, North.

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary failed the litmus test when he and the Government Whips made an arrangement to vote against a Labour amendment to accelerate work on crime prevention to create the right partnership between the police, local authorities and the community. He failed another litmus test when Conservative Members voted against a Labour amendment to help the victims of crime. They voted against the principle that victims and their families should be consulted before charges are dropped or downgraded in the courts.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 1202

Mr. Michael : There is little time to give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, should have addressed the subject of victims when he had the opportunity earlier. This week, we gave the House an opportunity to do something for victims and the hon. and learned Gentleman trooped in the Lobby in obedience of the Government Whips to vote against our amendment. The Government's record on prevention is poor.

The Home Secretary paid tribute to a number of projects that have worked well. I agree with him on that. However, I ask him to reject the project mentality adopted by his predecessor, which was to praise a project here, give a little bit of money for a project there and fail to put in place a strategy that learns the lessons of those constructive projects. It is not enough for him to praise projects and then fail to offer the opportunity for that success to be developed and redoubled around the country.

We know that many approaches and techniques work, but it is the Government who fail to turn those projects into a national strategy. As a result, the cost of crime is borne by every community, by every victim, by every person who pays insurance and by every shopper who now pays a sort of Conservative crime tax, which is exacted by criminals in an unplanned way. The Government need to put a strategy in place.

The Home Secretary's second suggestion was that we should catch criminals. I certainly agree that that is the greatest deterrent but the Government are not doing it. We saw crime rise and the clear-up rate drop from 41 per cent. in 1979 to 29 per cent. in 1991. At the same time, we saw a minimal increase in police numbers and a rise in crime of 121 per cent. All that has developed because we have seen the greatest rise in crimes of violence and, in volume, crimes such as home burglary and car crime which are so damaging to so many individuals and communities.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), after making a cheap jibe at my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, suggested that rising crime was all in the mind. [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] Yes, he did. That is precisely what he implied. That is not what I hear from chief constables throughout the country ; it is not what I hear from constables ; it is not what I hear from councillors and Crime Watch representatives ; and it is not what I hear from Victim Support groups.

Mr. Garnier : That is stupid.

Mr. Michael : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was stupid for his hon. and learned Friend to make that remark.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton also said that he wanted the people of this country to continue to feel that they could walk the streets safely. He said that we could walk the streets of our country feeling safer than people in other countries could. We want to keep it that way. We want to restore the sense of security that is being lost in Britain. It is worrying that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, is so complacent on that issue.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the success of the safer cities programme, but did not seek to explain why the Government are now cutting those projects. Again, we have a Government who learn a lesson and then throw away the results of their learning. The hon.

Column 1203

and learned Gentleman then shed crocodile tears about the members of his profession who sit around with nothing to do because not enough cases are being brought before the courts. He said that there is too much cautioning.

Why is this breakdown happening? It is because there is a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, which is falling into disrepute. That needs to be addressed by the Government. No one owns the criminal justice system. The Government must concentrate on getting the whole act together nationally. That would enable police, local authorities, magistrates and communities to get their act together locally. Support, instead of criticism, should be provided by the Government to those groups.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton also said that the police should become more local, and we agree. Already forces around Britain are devolving authority to local commanders, mainly at superintendent level. But this week the Government have made proposals that will result in a loss of local accountability. We have seen the threat of mergers, which the Home Secretary tried to hide when he presented the White Paper.

The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rightly said that nostrums waved at the Conservative party conference did not work, and he went on to call for amalgamation.

The Home Secretary must come clean, and not simply ask for an expedited procedure, because answers from Home Office Ministers have shown that that is not needed. The Home Secretary should tell us what his intentions are. Does he intend to amalgamate forces if he is given those extra powers to do so, without consulting and regarding the views of local people?

The Home Secretary then said that we needed to get people to court. There are two aspects there. We need to speed up the criminal justice system. But, again, the Conservative Members of the Standing Committee voted against the idea that we should place the principle of "justice delayed is justice denied" in the criminal justice system.

We asked for ways of speeding up action and making the system more effective. For example, we proposed that if a person received a second caution, things should happen rather than the person--in particular a young person--simply walking away from that caution. There should be help for the young person and his family. That was rejected in the Committee also.

We must tackle the issue of offending while on bail. I understand that the Bail (Amendment) Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) comes back before the House tomorrow. The Bill was handled poorly by the Government's representatives in the Lords and has survived as a result of the co-operation and support that has been given by the Opposition to a welcome initiative by a Conservative Back Bencher. That has resulted in the Bill getting so far. I hope that it will complete its passage speedily tomorrow. The fourth element that the Home Secretary asked for was that we should punish offenders. I agree, and we have proved that by supporting measures to deal with drug trafficking, terrorism, City fraud and causing death by dangerous driving, as we did only this week.

Attrition in the criminal justice system means that for every 100 offences committed, only two result in a conviction. That is a reduction on three last year. That is why the Government must tackle not only the element of punishment, but the 98 per cent. of crime that does not

Column 1204

result in a sentence in court. They must tackle that problem with urgency and determination so that they also make better use of prison and secure accommodation.

The issue of secure accommodation has been mentioned on several occasions. When the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was Minister of State, Home Office he promised in February 1991 that secure places would be provided to deal with 15 and 16-year-olds. I have checked again today, as we checked in February, and no additional places have been provided to fulfil that promise. What is the value of a promise by the Government to take action if action is not delivered?

When the Government's record is so poor and when concern has been expressed so loudly by both Opposition and Conservative Members, I ask the Minister to reply to this question tonight : will he accept the analysis and the advice that we have so freely offered, and reverse the situation? I hope so.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) saw a glimmer of cause for optimism in the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and the Home Secretary at the beginning of the debate. The fight against crime was weakened in recent years by the party-political knockabout and inattentiveness of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe when he was Home Secretary. I hope that this Minister and this Home Secretary will aspire to the more constructive and positive attitude exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. That is what the people of Britain are crying our for.

9.46 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean) : Almost every debate in the House on law and order for the past 40 years has been held against a background of rising crime. We should not conclude from that fact that we are powerless to act in the face of growing disrespect for the law. On the contrary, we should conclude that we face an immense challenge. The challenge is to turn the tide of rising crime, to come up with new ideas, to make life more difficult for the criminal and easier for the law- abiding citizen and, above all, to take the tough action that law-abiding people throughout Britain so clearly want and my hon. Friends have called for.

I believe that in meeting that challenge we should be guided by some straightforward principles. First, protection of our citizens and the maintenance of law and order is the first duty of the Government. Secondly, those who break the law must be held to account for their actions. Attempts to blame society or anyone else are a distraction, and a dangerous one at that. We shall never shilly-shally about who is responsible for it, or make excuses for the criminals.

Thirdly, while we must do all that we can to prevent crime, we must give the courts the powers that they need to deliver tough punishments to deter criminals and protect the public. Fourthly, the Conservative party stands four square behind the police and wants to give them all the support that it can in their difficult and often dangerous job.

No Government has a better record than the present Government in supporting the police in their work. It is a record of which we are rightly proud. There are 16,700 more police officers today than in 1979 and 14,000 extra

Column 1205

civilians. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) ignored the extra 6,000 policemen for the Met. Spending on the police is up by 80 per cent. in real terms. Police pay is up by 40 per cent. above inflation. That is an enormous investment by the taxpayer in the police and it shows the high priority that the Government give to law and order.

However, we also have a duty to make sure that we are getting the best value for money and the best service from the police. That is what our reforms are all about. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained the main thrust of our reforms on Monday. I welcome the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I Lawrence). The reforms envisage a clear set of aims and objectives for the police, to be issued by the Home Secretary each year. There will be a better partnership between police and local communities. There will be smaller and more effective police authorities, in control of their budgets and drawing up local strategies with the police and local people. Chief constables will have more freedom and responsibility to use their resources to meet the tasks set for them. What we want is an efficient and effective police service, working with local people to prevent crime and bring criminals to book.

I listened very carefully and respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) when he expressed his concerns. I believe that the Sheehy report is an important contribution to the work of the police in preventing crime and in bringing criminals to book. We will study the Sheehy report recommendations very carefully over the summer before coming to conclusions. I also accept the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that we must always maintain police morale.

I point out to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that the White Paper and the Sheehy report address totally different issues. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman came to his conclusions.

The police are part of our defence against crime, but our attack on crime must start with its origins. This is where we have to banish the trendy, so -called progressive thinking so favoured by too many of the Labour party. It began in the 1960s, when a former Labour Home Secretary, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, told us that the permissive society is the civilised society. That was the start of the decline into sloppy attitudes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) so rightly reminded us, the attitude was that examinations and competition were bad and prevented children from expressing themselves ; that there should be no respect for authority. That was all part of the question-everything attitude ; the let- it-all-hang-out era.

That sort of attitude and belief, prevalent in some sections of society, hastened our decline in the 1970s. It was thought that mass picketing was the right way to persuade others to one's point of view ; that rights were more important than duties and that society owed people a living, no matter how little effort they made to help themselves.

We will not arrest those attitudes by merely legislating in the House. They will only be changed in homes and schools. But we have a duty in this House to take measures to crack down on criminals and crime, and that is what we

Column 1206

have done. The whole range of measures that we have introduced, and will introduce in future, have the same goal of making life more difficult for criminals and easier for law-abiding citizens. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his support and the warm welcome that he gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

We have many schemes and many initiatives for crime prevention. We have had considerable success, but we want to mobilise as many people as possible and get them involved. Between the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and other Departments we are spending more than £200 million on all aspects of crime prevention. A great deal of concern has been expressed in the House, the media and up and down the country about persistent juvenile offenders. I share that concern. Some of those offenders have caused havoc in local communities by breaking the law again and again but getting off scot free. Action needed to be taken, and that is why, on 2 March, the Home Secretary announced his plans to create a new sentence of detention, a secure training order.

That sentence will be available for the small hard core of persistent offenders aged betweend 12 and 15 years who have not responded to community sentences. Those training orders are not for innocent young scallywags scrumping a few apples ; they are for persistent young offenders who have become hardened criminals and who have a string of convictions. They must be taken off the streets in order to protect themselves and the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) rightly said.

It is time that we had a straight answer from the Labour party about secure training orders, instead of the pretence that a few more local authority secure places would satisfy a different need. Its proposal to extend local authority secure accommodation simply will not cut the mustard. We need to give the right to the courts to sentence persistent young offenders to custody, where they will receive special treatment and not be mixed with other youngsters. It is time for a decision from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Will he let the courts have that right to sentence directly persistent young offenders to juvenile custody? I think the answer, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, is that the proof of the Labour party pudding is in the eating. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sedgefield will also tell us when he had his great change of heart on lenient sentences which he appeared to show at the start of his speech.

I shall reflect on all that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said about cautioning. He made some important points, and I can tell him that new guidance will be issued shortly which will discourage repeat cautioning. He might be interested to know that I spent the whole weekend reading the memoranda which have been submitted to the Select Committee.

We are also determined to crack down on rural crime. People in the countryside, in our villages and small towns are particularly frightened of crime. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South- East (Mr. Paice) spoke so eloquently and passionately for rural constituents. Country people are unused to crime. We do not always take precautions to prevent it, not because we

Column 1207

are careless but because we have never found it necessary before as we used to be able to leave the house unlocked and the keys in the car.

Although rural crime is rising, it is rising from a very low base. The 700 per cent. increase reported in this week's Country Life was an increase of two crimes to 14. It also cites a 75 per cent. increase in Cambridgeshire, which meant two extra crimes, one in a telephone box--although it did not say what it was. We should not take any comfort from the low figures. Indeed, we must crack rural crime before it becomes established. That means that all of us who live in the countryside must do a lot more for ourselves in terms of crime prevention.

There are several successful initiatives such as County Watch and Farm Watch which must be copied and extended. I give Country Life much encouragement in its campaign against rural crime. Above all, country people should use their natural camaraderie and community spirit to be the eyes and ears of the police in rural areas. In the House three weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) gave me some extremely good advice. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North will agree with his excellent plea on behalf of victims and his speech tonight about the balance of fear. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield asked me to meet the victims of crime before meeting sociologists with their woolly jumpers and their even woollier theories, I think he said. I promised that I would, and I have kept my word. I have met magistrates and policemen and this morning I met the victims of crime. These people offered such good common sense advice that I am not sure that I shall need to meet too many sociologists in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend can rest more easily having received that news, but I assure the House that, in the months ahead, I shall look forward to meeting everyone involved in combating crime and criminals.

I must tell the hon. Member for Lewisham, East that our criminal injuries compensation is the most generous of any in the world, standing at £152 million. We have spent £500 million on various aspects of drug control and prevention, and we are increasing the safer cities programme from 20 projects to 40, not cutting it. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made a passionate speech about drugs. I wish that he had also made it at the Scottish Liberal party conference in Dunoon which passed a resolution to legalise cannabis.

Column 1208

We have a packed agenda on law and order, promoting crime prevention, supporting and reforming the police, toughening sentences for criminals, dealing strongly with young offenders and rolling back decades of wrong-headed nonsense in our schools. They are the measures that people expect from this party which is dedicated to law and order, to protecting ordinary people and to upholding the rule of law.

What did we hear from the hon. Member for Sedgefield? We certainly did not hear a set of concrete measures to hit criminals ; we heard nothing to reassure people who are frightened of crime and not a hint of regret for the years that the Labour party spent calling for softer sentences, undermining the police and encouraging law-breaking. What we heard was merely a lot of words. Whatever post the hon. Gentleman has held on the Opposition Front Bench, he has always taken the same approach : no speech, no press release and no interview is complete without a call for immediate action. It does not matter what the action is as long as it is immediate and as long as he has called for it. He cannot get out of bed in the morning without calling for a Government statement or a new initiative. He is a good dealer in sound bites. This time the sound bites are on "law and order", but they could just as easily be on "training and investment" or "motherhood and apple pie".

There is no substance to the hon. Gentleman's words, but that is hardly surprising because Labour has no record of sticking up for the police and law-abiding citizens against those who break the law. Where were the Opposition when the Militant Tendency organised a campaign of non-payment of the community charge? They were not exactly encouraging people to obey the law. Some Opposition Back Benchers were encouraging them to break it.

Where were Opposition Members when policemen were attacked by pickets during the coal strike or at Wapping? They were not behind the police : many of them were behind the pickets. Above all, where were they when the Government repeatedly legislated to toughen sentences for criminals? They did not support us but tried to vote us down. No doubt they were following the advice--

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Column 1209

Oldchurch Hospital, Romford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Michael Brown.]

10 pm

Sir Michael Neubert (Romford) : The headline on the front page of the Evening Standard on Wednesday 23 June was :

"Hit list dooms nine hospitals".

Oldchurch hospital in my constituency was one of those identified for closure. Therefore, I am glad to have this early opportunity to register my strongest opposition to that proposal.

This is not the first time that Oldchurch hospital has been threatened. During the almost 20 years that I have served in the House there have been regular and repeated assaults by the establishment on different aspects of our locry of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is present for the debate but is obliged to maintain ministerial silence.

We are also supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) who are strongly against the proposals. I am also encouraged by the good will of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) who has good reason to be thankful to Oldchurch hospital as he was born there.

I shall preface my speech by mentioning two matters. First, it must cause concern that the Tomlinson report on the problems of the national health service in inner London has, by the setting up of six speciality reviews, been extended to outer London. It seems that the problems of inner London are to be solved at the expense of outer London, and that is unacceptable.

For decades, as the population of inner London has declined, we in outer London have watched the teaching hospitals draw on our outer-London constituents to fill their emptying clinics, with the result that, in general terms, we on the periphery have been starved of resources. It is unacceptable that once again it should be suggested that to make good the lack of patients in the centre of the city we should lose some of our facilities.

Secondly, review committees dominated by professionals must be expected to favour centres of excellence. It is natural that professional people should want to achieve the highest standards and advance the frontiers of medical knowledge, and that they should favour the most advanced technology, the most lavish facilities and, of course, the highest paid consultants and administrators. I accept that the proposal for Oldchurch hospital would be subjected to proper consultation. If the public who pay for the service were asked, most of them would say that they preferred the comfort, convenience and assurance of an excellent local hospital. For all its outdated, Victorian workhouse appearance, Oldchurch hospital is just that. It has some pretensions to excellence and I sometimes think that that is the reason for resentment by those who are perhaps better placed in other parts of London.

However, the fact that the teaching hospitals are concentrated in the centre of London is an accident of history, and it does not necessarily follow that they need

Column 1210

always be there, and that there might not be a case for a hospital on the edge of London such as Oldchurch hospital itself becoming a teaching hospital. That may seem fanciful, but in principle there is nothing wrong with the idea.

The proposals are related to the provision of cancer services and neurosciences. Both the units at Oldchurch hospital have been threatened twice before, and my hon. Friends and I have been involved in saving the cancer unit on two previous occasions.

The most important factor is that cancer is a terrible disease. If it can be treated locally, that is by far the best solution. There will always be unusual cancers which perhaps need certain specialist treatment, but it is desirable that people should not have too far to travel for general cancer treatment. That is an important factor, although there is also the question of investment in equipment already established at Oldchurch hospital. Those were the main factors, and I hope that they will prevail again.

The regional neurosciences unit has had considerable investment over the years. One of the major factors against change has been that the unit at Oldchurch in Romford is placed at the heart of a very convenient and effective road and rail network. People can get there quickly and, although it is a local facility, it has regional importance and about 75 per cent. of its work comes from the county of Essex. Those are the principal reasons against proposals to close those two aspects of Oldchurch hospital.

Like the cancer unit, the neurosciences have been threatened twice in the past 20 years but each time closure has been fought off and for good reason. There is no particular proposal that Oldchurch hospital should close, despite the headline with which I began my speech, but it is clear that the removal of two important parts of the hospital would call into question its viability.

In particular, neurosciences depend on the interaction of different disciplines within the hospital and that is greatly valued by the consultants themselves who would look upon Oldchurch hospital as a very different place if there were no facility to cross departments and seek advice and assistance and the use of equipment from other parts of the hospital for their particular specialty. That is an important consideration.

There may, of course, be a hidden agenda. It may be part of a process eventually leading to the closure of Oldchurch hospital, but that certainly would be resisted by those who work there. It is a fact that I personally regret and express to my hon. Friend the Minister that such uncertainty obviously undermines the confidence of the public in the national health service and the morale of the staff working in the hospital, and we have enjoyed more than our fair share of uncertainty in recent years. I consider that to be unfortunate, but it may be inevitable.

It is only a matter of months since the most recent threat to the hospital was lifted, with the setting up of a trust based on two hospitals-- Oldchurch and Harold Wood--and a twin-site strategy. Only months later, Oldchurch hospital is once again under threat. An important factor which is not sufficiently taken into account in all these exercises is what I call the patient-visitor factor. Financial equations are set up to match the revenue and capital investment and consider the concentration and co- ordination of services and see some saving or better use, but rarely does the unseen factor of convenience and accessibility come sufficiently into

Column 1211

question. It is rarely costed, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a very real cost, which should be respected. His predecessor, our hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), answering my Adjournment debate on 27 February 1991, said :

"Convenience and accessibility are important factors in deciding the pattern of health care in any locality."-- [Official Report, 27 February 1991 ; Vol. 186, c. 1096.]

I strongly believe that that is true.

I recently learned in my own surgery of the human cost of people having to travel long distances to see consultants and to receive treatment. One of my constituents explained the problems that she had encountered taking her elderly father, ill with cancer, to the Royal London hospital--which is one teaching hospital proposed for a concentration of resources under the review.

When she and her father--a frail, sick man who had to be left at the hospital entrance--arrived, she found that there was nowhere to park and had to find somewhere nearby. She parked in a place that she thought was safe. She saw a warning notice, but thought that it applied to a British Telecom depot. When she returned to her car, she found that it had been towed away.

She was forced to get a taxi to return to the hospital to collect her father, who was in great pain, and suffering considerably. Treatment often induces nausea, but even travel and seeing a consultant is painful for someone in that condition. That lady then had to return to the pound to reclaim her vehicle. All that, so that a patient living in my constituency could receive the treatment he needed. He has since died.

That example illustrates the human experience of patients having to travel longer distances than otherwise are necessary. I urge that those financial costs be entered into the question because they make the outcome look very different.

It is clear from the review documents that the financial implications of the proposals are virtually non-existent. The Evening Standard reported that the leaders of the review teams were very nervous when defending their plans. They admitted that their knowledge of the financial consequences was virtually zero and that they could make no meaningful comparison between one department and another.

The same report mentions the concern of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who himself represents a London constituency. I am not surprised at his concern, because the review is something of a pig in a poke. There is very little figuring to it. My experience of all NHS changes is that a great deal of money is needed up front and that they depend on other factors, such as the value of vacated sites--which, in the present climate, is not a reality.

Any suggestion, for example, that the NHS could capitalise on the Oldchurch site in Romford would be rather diminished by the fact that only last year Romford brewery closed after nearly 300 years, leaving a 20-acre site awaiting some useful development. Creating another such site just across the road would not have much value and would represent the unwise disposal of a public asset. All those factors come into the question.

The reviews are based on certain factual errors. I shall quote from a critique of the two review documents prepared by the hospital trust, because it is important to read it into the record and to show that in the review

Column 1212

committee's haste to reach conclusions and to make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it may have laboured under a misapprehension.

On cancer services, reference is made to page 115 of the review. The trust comments :

"The Trust is currently reviewing how all of its existing services should best be located, using both the Oldchurch and Harold Wood sites for the foreseeable future. Centralisation of all specialties on to one site is not an option due to the volume of patients currently treated and the excessive capital implications of such a development. Oldchurch Hospital has a comprehensive range of general hospital services on site. These include General Surgery, Urology, Orthopaedics, Medicine, Oral Surgery, Ophthalmology, Intensive Therapy, Paediatrics, Accident and Emergency, Medicine for the Elderly, Rheumatology, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and others. This can hardly be described as a restricted range.

Recruitment difficulties for physicists and radiographers are not thought to be any more problematic at Oldchurch than similar centres."

The trust says of paragaraph 102 on page 24 of the neurosciences paper :

"Oldchurch has been successfully running a Neuroscience Nursing course for some years. No mention is made of this, although plans to develop such a course in other units are referred to."

It says of paragraph 103 :

"A Senior Registrar rotation scheme exists in Neurosurgery, linked to St. Barts. The report overlooks the wide body of research work undertaken in Neurology. This includes, beside the Neuro-care team, clinical trial in Parkinson's Disease and research into Alzheimer's Disease, Essential Tremor Disease, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME). Funding for this work in 1992- 93 exdeeded £100,000."

It says of paragraph 104 :

"This incorrect assumption is similar to that detailed above in the Cancer Review."--

that is, that there will be only a single site.

"Aside from the ENT Department, the most recent capital investment at Harold Wood was Phase 1 of the nucleus development, some 7 years ago.

Whilst the lack of on-site MRI (Magnetic Resonence Imaging) is described as a deficiency for Oldchurch, similar absence at other sites (such as Hirstwood Park and the Maudsley) is not mentioned. No reference is made to our current bid to fund MRI within Havering Hospitals.

The operating theatre mentioned is dedicated to the exclusive use of Neurosurgery.

The Oldchurch service is criticised for the lack of linked specialties"--

I have already illustrated the range of specialtiesavailable-- "when it is better supported than other centres, such as Atkinson Morley and the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases. In particular Maxillo Facial (Oral) Surgery, Ophthalmology, and Orthopaedic Services are on the same site, together with the wide range of other clinical services mentioned above."

Finally, it says of paragraph 107 :

"The Oldchurch centre is described as a local service. In fact it currently serves 75 per cent. of the Essex population, and ME patients are referred nationally. The statement that the unit does not have the facilities that should be available to a major general hospital is clearly wrong. A recent specialist advisory committee report on Neurosciences was quite satisfied with the general range of services."

Oldchurch hospital has a high standing in the community. It serves a large district--previously 453,000 people--and even now, with the detachment of Brentwood, it serves an important part of London's population. Part of that population in the Barking and Dagenham end is, to a degree, deprived and has a high incidence of health need. The population generally can be characterised as having a high morbidity and a low

Next Section

Home Page