| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.58 pm
Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): I leave the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) to dream on.
Undoubtedly, all hon. Members read the Order Paper each day. I am sure that they do so devotedly and thoroughly from start to finish. I am beginning to be glad that the public do not follow our example. If they did and read the motion that is before us, thousands of people would be astonished. We read of the "grave situation" of the national health service, of "anxiety," "alarm" and "intolerable pressure". We are told that many people are
I can say without question that anyone who has been in hospital, or been to their doctor, and experienced the level of care that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) described, would not recognise the terms of the motion. The motion is so far from reality that there is virtually no connection between what it states and the reality of the health service.
It is not an infrequent occurrence for me to receive letters from constituents or to receive visits at my surgery. People write or visit to say, "I want to let you know that I have been in hospital"--it might have been one of a number of hospitals--"and I had the most wonderful care. The most wonderful nurses and doctors looked after me. The treatment I had, the drugs I received and the operation performed were magnificent." Yet those who have not had the misfortune to be ill, or the good fortune to be looked after in an NHS hospital, must think that our hospitals are appalling, especially if they read the rubbish contained in the Opposition motion.
It is true that the press, especially local newspapers, seem to glory in presenting bad news. They will rejoice at someone being left on a trolley. They will not mention,
21 Jan 1997 : Column 790
Intensive care units were mentioned at Question Time, including Prime Minister's Question Time, and in this debate. If we had so many extra intensive care units available that every patient who suddenly had a need for such a bed could immediately be placed in a unit within 20 minutes of his or her home, we would need a huge increase in the money that is available to spend. If that provision were made available, thousands of intensive beds would be left empty day after day. I can imagine the fuss that would be generated by the newspapers, let alone Her Majesty's Opposition, about the waste involved in all those beds remaining empty in the absence of emergencies, accidents, children having serious heart conditions or whatever. The expense of having an intensive care unit available for everyone who might--not would--have a need for one, having fallen under a bus or out of a window, would be amazing to contemplate.
The same point can be made about ordinary hospital beds. Patients on trolleys in corridors are not there for fun. They are there because every bed in the hospital is full. We never hear, however, about the numbers of patients who are being treated in hospitals. We know--[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) laughing. God forbid that he should have any responsibility for providing the country with health care as he clearly knows little about it. We cannot possibly keep empty beds available just in case we are faced with a 'flu epidemic. It is clear that Labour Members are living in a dream world. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Doncaster, North laughs and refuses to face the facts. He will hear a few more from me, whether he likes it or not.
I have attended health debates in the House for many years. Whenever Conservative Governments have initiated reforms or improvements, or introduced new ideas, Labour has voted against them. If we are realistic, we must accept that reforms have to be made. We all know--perhaps the hon. Member for Doncaster, North does not, but he would be the only Member in that position--that if we are to give everyone every care that he or she needs at any particular time, we shall have to make more money available. I happen to believe that voters agree with that assertion. I recognise, of course, that they want a good health service and are happy to see that their taxes are spent to provide one.
Many of the reforms that we have introduced, against which Opposition Members voted, were designed to ensure that all moneys spent within the health service were spent wisely. At one time we had no idea how much it cost to keep someone in a hospital bed overnight. We did not have a clue. We also did not know how much it cost to perform operations, ranging from those to remove varicose veins to heart transplants and complicated liver surgery, for example.
Mr. Chris Smith:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight:
No, the hon. Gentleman must listen for a short while.
21 Jan 1997 : Column 791
We Conservatives ensured that inquiries were made and careful costings undertaken. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman--
Mr. Smith:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight:
Let me finish my sentence. When I have done so, he can have his go.
I remember--perhaps my memory is better than the hon. Gentleman's on these matters--that we initiated schemes to enable us to ascertain costs. The Labour Opposition voted against them.
Mr. Smith:
The hon. Lady is making much of the supposed fact that we now know the cost of operations. I specifically asked the Secretary of State in a written question in December 1996 to supply the average cost in England of a hip replacement operation. Why, then, did I receive the answer that he did not know?
Dame Jill Knight:
The hon. Gentleman cannot deny the truth of what I have said. It may not be possible in every instance to state the cost of a hip replacement operation, but we Conservatives initiated schemes--if the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, he would have voted against them--to try to determine costs. I am talking about the principle of needing to know what hospital stays and operations cost. We now know a great deal more--I accept that we do not know everything--about costs. Much time, care and work were expended on finding answers to questions of costs.
Why was that? We had the opportunity for the first time to ask, "Why is it that this hospital can run its operation theatre at a cost of only £X per hour while another hospital is running its theatre three times more expensively?" We were able to say, "This hospital is able to accommodate a patient overnight at a quarter of the cost incurred by the hospital along the road. Why is that?" On that basis, each hospital and each hospital chief executive could examine why one hospital was cheaper than another.
It is no good the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) thinking that what I have described did not happen. He lives in cloud cuckoo land most of the time, but he must understand that without a knowledge of costs, which we most certainly have and have used, we would not be able to make comparisons and introduce savings.
A great deal of money was saved once we could ask cost questions. We found that many areas of hospital care--for example, cleaning, the provision of food and laundering--would be much more cheaply provided on a privatised basis. Labour voted against such schemes. It is hilarious now to hear what Labour is saying about privatisation. Never in 100 million years would it have introduced privatisation. We said, however, that it would be sensible to adopt schemes that would enable us to have more money, and they have provided that. Private firms were employed if they could do those jobs better.
I remember Labour Members jeering at us and accusing us of thinking that it is all a matter of money. You think that it is not at all a matter of money--I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not referring to you. Her Majesty's Opposition may think that money does not come into it, but doctors and nurses have to be paid, new
21 Jan 1997 : Column 792
Labour Members accuse us of trying to save money, every penny of which we have spent on the treatment of patients--our reforms gave us much more money to do that. None of that would have happened were it not for the Conservative party's reforms, all of which the Labour party voted against. Since they were introduced in 1991, our reforms have enabled no fewer than 3,500 more people per day to be treated. What a lot of pain that must alleviate. What a lot of comfort that must give to relatives who are concerned about their sons or daughters.
Her Majesty's Opposition seem to set themselves up as the friend of the health service. If that is so, it is the first time ever.
Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley):
The Tory Government voted against it.
Dame Jill Knight:
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, he would know a little more than he does about the history of the health service.
The fact of the matter is that more money will be necessary. Although we have made a clear pledge to provide more money, the Labour party has not. When the general election campaign comes--it cannot be far away--people will not believe a word that Labour Members say. The Labour party refuses to promise to spend any more money; it says that it may spend more money but that it will not increase tax. If it will not increase tax, where is the money to come from? Will national insurance contributions or excise duties be increased? Will Labour extend VAT? No. Apparently it will be possible to make much more money available to the health service merely by ending bureaucracy.
I should like to read a quick snip from The Independent of 28 November 1996:
"without the access to health care they need".
What tommy-rot.
"The big question Mr Smith has to address is resources. It is no good Labour relying on its present formula of sacking managers to create £100 million for the NHS to recycle. The managers have gone. The savings have been made. He should fight Gordon Brown the shadow chancellor for the right, at the very least, to match the Tory cash promise for next year".
No such matching promise has been made. Furthermore, I could not help noticing what a Labour Member said in The Journal on 4 December 1996:
"Labour will match any spending pledges made by the Conservatives".
That was on 4 December, but I am still waiting for Labour to match the spending pledges made by the Conservatives. There is more. He said:
"we will also cut £100 million from the NHS bureaucracy bill and use it to treat . . . 100,000 patients".
His arithmetic is a little dodgy. Labour has made no spending pledges, and it is perfectly obvious that the electorate will not be told whether there will be more spending and where the money will come from.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |