| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dobson: I am advised by our lawyers--the hon. Gentleman can give that whatever weight he likes--that the Race Relations Act 1976 applies in full to the NHS. If it does, why do we need to change that?
Mr. Hughes: I should be happy to debate that with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber, but my advice and understanding, and that of the CRE, is that not all matters relating to employment, which I shall come to, and to treatment, are governed by the 1976 Act. A general duty of non-discrimination would ensure that the Sheffield case did not arise, and would also cover events such as old people being turned down by the health service and discrimination on other grounds.
I have been approached by colleagues in Rochdale--this may interest the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons)--about a severe case of racial discrimination in the health service. On 24 June last year, the Rochdale Healthcare trust was visited by representatives of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a dean from Manchester university, Professor Hayden, who was acting on behalf of the colleges to examine training in the Rochdale health service. At the end of her examination she said:
Lorna Fitzsimons:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as this matter involves my constituency?
Mr. Hughes:
Of course, I shall give way in a second.
Will the Secretary of State investigate what happened? Will he ensure that that trust and all others are never again at risk because of the practice of recruiting more overseas graduates?
Given incidents such as those in Rochdale and Sheffield, will he agree to allow the CRE to undertake an investigation into racism in the health service? Will he bring to the House also the result of a further inquiry into how we can hold the royal colleges to account, because they tell the health service what to do with no accountability to Parliament or to the NHS? Some hospitals have been closed because the royal colleges have said that there was no suitable training. It is time that those professional organisations were held democratically accountable, because they have significant authority throughout the country.
Lorna Fitzsimons:
I should have liked the courtesy that the hon. Gentleman asked of the Government Front-Bench team. He raised an issue with which I have been dealing. He waded in, I am sure with utter sincerity, but with political opportunism, which I have got to know well locally. If he cares so much about the health service in Rochdale, he should advise his colleagues that, rather than scaring old people during a council by-election by saying that the council was shutting a hospital, they should acknowledge the investment of £28 million in a new hospital, £15 million in a health action zone, and £27 million in new money for new services.
I have taken this case up with the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Surgeons. If the hon. Gentleman had cared to ask me about it, we could have fought together, because I agree with him about the problem of the Royal College of Surgeons and its intervention in the Bury and Rochdale health authority.
Mr. Hughes:
The hon. Lady's comments speak for themselves.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to distinguish between overseas doctors and UK graduates from black and ethnic minorities? It is completely unacceptable for UK doctors from black and ethnic minorities not to have exactly the same treatment as white UK graduates. There may be issues that affect overseas doctors, whether they are black or white. For those of us who care about race relations in the NHS, it is more helpful if we are clear on precisely what we are talking about. Moreover, as soon as the Overseas Doctors Association changes its name, the better.
Mr. Hughes:
The right hon. Lady is right to make the point that there are two different issues. However, it is clear from the correspondence that it is as wrong to discriminate against somebody because they graduated from an overseas university as it is to discriminate on the basis that someone who graduated from a university in this country is a member of an ethnic minority community. The issue--which caused great offence--concerned discrimination, and a suggestion that the Rochdale trust might not be funded if it did not reduce the number of people whom it appointed from overseas universities. That cannot be acceptable. I hope that the Secretary of State will make that clear, and that he will deal with the person who said that that was appropriate policy.
The Government's surprising endorsement of the private finance initiative--contrary to all their arguments when in opposition--is not finding favour either within
the NHS or, significantly, outside. It is no good pretending that there is a further £8 million for investment in the NHS when £1.5 million of that is new money and the rest is entirely arrived at by the selling of assets.
A letter that the Secretary of State may have seen--accompanying a BMA press release of 16 July--stated that, in Edinburgh, the Scottish Office had confirmed that the Government had rejected greater bed numbers for the PFI flagship hospital as not affordable. It is entirely on the basis of cost that PFI schemes are now being approved or not. I challenge the Government to make it clear where, if anywhere, a PFI scheme has resulted in more beds and more resources than previously, as opposed--as has happened in every case so far--to fewer beds and fewer resources.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that not just the public demand, but the need of the patients requires that a greater share of our national wealth is dedicated to national health. It is surprising to us that the Labour Government have never made that commitment. They have made it for education, but they have been silent on health. Some of the pressures that the NHS is under, some of the lack of morale among NHS staff and some of the failures set out in the motion could be addressed if the Government were brave enough to say that, to have a decent health service for the next century, rather than funding it just a bit more every year, we have to give it a significant boost in funding, so that we as a country spend on the health service what the country believes that it needs.
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield):
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on meningitis. As the representative of a constituency where there have been fatalities through this terrible problem, I know that his announcement will be widely welcomed. I know how anxious many parents are in my area and elsewhere about this problem.
I have had some difficulty in understanding the Conservative party's tactics over the past few hours. I was in the Chamber at 2 o'clock this morning on either the eighth or ninth totally pointless Division. I do not understand the purpose of such an exercise, where there is no debate. All that appears to be happening is that we are wasting huge amounts of public money in keeping in this place large numbers of people--the staff--who could be better off at home in their beds, preparing for the following day's work.
I do not understand those tactics, and I do not understand the tactics of the Tory motion which I read at 9.30 am--after half a night's sleep. [Hon. Members: "Ah! "] Thank you for that sympathetic response. In drawing attention to the comparative health policies of the previous Conservative Government and the new Labour Government, the motion draws attention to the paucity of the Conservatives' thinking on health care.
I listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who has now left the Chamber. I apologise for referring to him when he is not here, but it is not my fault that he has left the
Chamber. He did not propose one policy of any type to deal with the concerns that he expressed. Today's official Opposition motion suggests not one idea of what they would do to address those issues if they were in government.
I was disappointed also with the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)--for whom I have some respect; he has at least some knowledge of health issues, and some belief in what he says--as he was unable to offer any real policies on what he would do were he Secretary of State for Health.
The official Opposition's motion on health is the thinnest motion that I can remember debating in any of the numerous such debates that I have attended in my mere 13 years in this place. Their motion is petty, superficial and only a token attempt to imply that they have some interest in the concept of collective health care--which they have opposed since voting against establishment of the national health service in 1946.
"finally I am disappointed not to find many UK graduates employed in your hospital. I am giving you a clear warning that when I come back in two years' time if this has not changed then I will remove some of the funding for training."
That comment caused great distress to people working in the health service in Rochdale, where recruitment is on the basis of application and ability. Since then, the dean has made only a statement that her comments were misunderstood, and not a full apology. There is no confirmation that her comments will not have an adverse impact on the hospital's assessment in the future. I know that the Secretary of State has received a copy of at least some of the correspondence. One of the hon. Lady's predecessors, Sir Cyril Smith, was asked if he could intervene to ensure that we never have such a practice again.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |