| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.18 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Before the election, my constituency straddled two of the former health authorities in north Essex--the north-east Essex area and the mid-Essex area--and I echo his remarks about the managers who work for our local health service. He is right to say that they often do not receive the recognition that they are due. I join him in paying tribute to all the people who work for the health service, including the managers, in north Essex.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which is of great importance to my constituents and, of course, to all the constituents of hon. Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make a brief contribution. He has already described in some detail the history of underfunding that North Essex health authority has suffered. I do not want to cover the same ground that he has already gone over, but suffice it to say that--for the five years that I have been in Parliament--my hon. Friends and I have regularly banged on the doors of Health Ministers to plead the case for north Essex.
As my hon. Friends have described, the situation is not new, because north Essex has suffered from underfunding for some time. In the past, our case has been recognised, and the fact that North Essex health authority has suffered a greater shortfall in the amounts actually received compared with the target allocation has led North Essex to receive one of the biggest increases of any health authority in the country. It is for that reason that the change in the formula is so worrying to us.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford in welcoming the extra money that has been provided this year, both in the allocation that has been made for health authority spending and the extra that has recently been announced to tackle the specific problem of emergency
admissions this winter. However, the target allocation for the health authority has been reduced as a result of the change in the formula that the Government have made. That means that north Essex can no longer look forward to increases on the same scale that it has enjoyed in the past. For that reason, North Essex health authority has really had no choice but to contemplate reductions in facilities and services.
My hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred to some of the likely consequences of any reductions. I wish to concentrate on the specific implications for one hospital--St. Peter's hospital in Maldon in my constituency. St. Peter's is a community hospital, in that it serves people living in the district of Maldon. It has extensive out-patient facilities, as well as 58 elderly persons beds, eight general practitioner beds and a maternity unit.
All those facilities are greatly valued by the people in Maldon, which is a large district with a scattered community. In particular, those living in the Dengie peninsula are a long way from the main general hospital at Broomfield, which has already been mentioned. St. Peter's hospital is therefore essential, so that patients living in my constituency can receive treatment without having to travel an unreasonable distance.
In seeking to make savings, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS trust originally put forward a proposal that would have led to the closure of St. Peter's hospital. I am pleased to say that that option has been rejected by North Essex health authority. Although it would have released some £2 million in savings if the whole closure programme had been implemented, the health authority has said that it is not a realistic option. I warmly applaud that decision, which is admirable common sense. However, there is still a proposal on the table to close the GP beds and the maternity unit at St. Peter's.
In the year to March 1997, 189 deliveries took place in the maternity unit at St. Peter's. That may not seem very many, but it must be borne in mind that the alternatives available to expectant mothers living in the Maldon district are to have their babies at home or to travel to St. John's hospital in Chelmsford. St John's hospital is some way away, particularly for those mothers in some of the more distant villages in my constituency, such as Bradwell or Tillingham.
There is also a proposal on the table that, in the long term, St. John's hospital will no longer be available. Eventually, maternity facilities may be concentrated at Broomfield hospital. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) referred to the difficulties that his constituents have in reaching Broomfield, on the north-west side of Chelmsford. My constituents in the further reaches of the Maldon district will find it even more difficult. They may face journeys of up to an hour to get to the hospital.
In 1993, the Government published a document entitled, "Changing Childbirth", which stated Government policy on maternity services. The document says:
The proposal to close the maternity unit at St. Peter's has understandably led to considerable protest in the Maldon district. Two local mothers, Nicky Crisp and Caroline Anderson, have put together a campaigning organisation called MOMMS--Mothers Opposed to Maldon Maternity Shutdown. In just a few months, they have collected more than 7,000 signatures on a petition, which I hope to be able to present to the House in the near future.
I am encouraged by the assurance of the chief executive of North Essex health authority that the current consultation period is genuine and that no final decisions have been taken. I hope that that is the case, and that there is still an opportunity for the decision to close the maternity unit to be reversed. If St. Peter's is to have a long-term future, the only real solution will be money. That is why I come back to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for North Essex.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn):
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing time for it. The fact that so many hon. Members from both sides have contributed to this full debate is indicative of the seriousness of the issues raised. I pay tribute to him.
I also support the tributes that have been paid to all national health service staff. They do an extremely good job, often in difficult circumstances and under enormous pressure.
It is especially appropriate to record our thanks at this time of year, with winter pressing. One thing is certain in the national health service--that winter inevitably brings additional pressures, not only in Essex but throughout the country. The people who will be on the front line of coping and of delivering high-quality services are the staff who work on our wards and in the community--and yes, those in the offices, too. NHS staff perform a vital function, and it is right and proper that hon. Members on both sides of the House have recorded their thanks to them.
I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that the Government share his desire to see high-quality health care available to people in all parts of the country. He went out of his way to make the House aware of many of the developments that have taken place in and near his constituency over recent years, and clearly those developments are welcome to his constituents.
In framing our national policy as a Government, we must ensure that the same advantages that have accrued to the hon. Gentleman's constituents are available to all. As he knows, the national health service was founded on the principle that the best health care should be available to everyone on the basis of need alone; I am sure that that is a principle that all hon. Members share.
However, the national health service that the Government have inherited is not always providing the best care in all circumstances at all times. Many people within the NHS--the very members of staff whom the hon. Gentleman praised--have become increasingly concerned in recent years about some of the unfairness that has crept into the delivery of care. There are concerns about accessibility and variations in quality--and, of course, there are concerns about the fact that sometimes the NHS has become rather too burdened with unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape.
However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the new Government have already taken several steps to remedy that situation. I am sure that he and others will bear with me for a moment if, before dealing with the specific situation in north Essex, I briefly mention some of those developments--not least because many of the policy developments that we have instituted over the past few months have a direct bearing on the situation facing his constituents and those of other hon. Members.
As the House will know, a wide range of action is in progress, or has already been taken, designed to replace the internal market in the NHS. Guidance has been issued to introduce common waiting lists for non-urgent cases, and to move the health service away from the market mentality that has developed in recent times towards a more co-operative approach to commissioning health services.
"Maternity services must be readily and easily accessible to all. They should be sensitive to the needs of the local population and based primarily in the community."
That document was produced by the previous Government. I wrote to the Minister about that. His reply of 5 October said:
"I can confirm that the Government fully agrees with the principles of women-centred maternity care, as outlined in 'Changing Childbirth'."
That document still represents Government policy on maternity services. If that is to be a reality and if the Government are to meet the objective of serving the needs of the local population by basing care primarily in the community, closing St. Peter's maternity unit would be a great step backwards.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |