| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.55 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am pleased to follow so many colleagues who have a scientific background. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) all have a science degree. I do not think that that is true of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and it is certainly not true of me. I readily confess that I doubt that I would pass even the cornflakes test: I regularly receive and read POST reports and, sometimes, I have had to read them two or three times to understand them properly. I shall certainly follow up the report mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Science and the explanation of science is important to all parliamentarians--for example, in connection with issues such as genetically modified organisms, stem cell research and BSE and its links with CJD. A more practical matter of concern to many of our constituents is telecommunications, the subject of the Stewart report. All are important issues that Members of Parliament need to learn about and understand. I was strongly struck by the example of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs going to POST for advice. One the points highlighted in the recent Liaison Committee report is the need for central services to advise Select Committees.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): I confess to knowing little about the existence of POST. Several key issues have been mentioned, one of which is being discussed now by the Deputy Prime Minister, yet POST does not appear to have included in any of its reports an evaluation of whether global warming is occurring and, if so, to what extent. Why is that?
Mr. Tipping: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has had little time to study these matters, but I understand that POST has examined that issue. One of the main issues being addressed by The Hague conference is the concept of carbon sinks--a difficult issue that needs a great deal of work. POST has achieved a lot, but those who are involved with it know that there remains much to be done.
Mr. Allan: Let me assist the Minister and save him time that he might otherwise spend going through the reports. I can refer him to the 1990 report on global warming, the 1992 report on global warming update and subsequent reports, from the 1993 report on carbon dioxide levels to the report published in October this year on implementing the Kyoto climate change agreements.
Mr. Tipping: Let me conclude by saying that I do not think that sufficient attention is given to science, its importance and the need to promote it. In my view,
the debate on GMOs has been characterised by ignorance. There is far more to be done, and I am delighted that POST is there to inform us.
- That this House approves the First Report from the Information Committee on the Future of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (HC 659).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
- That, at the sittings on Wednesday 22nd, Thursday 23rd and Monday 27th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall be received.-- [Mr. Clelland.]
Bracknell Primary Care Group
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Clelland.]
10.59 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): I start by thanking the Speaker, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for ensuring that I could so quickly bring an urgent matter involving my constituency to the attention of the House. I also thank the Under-Secretary for coming to reply to the debate.
It is not very often that a member of the shadow Cabinet who is also a Privy Councillor and has been a Member of Parliament for 20 years introduces an Adjournment debate. By and large, we are fortunate enough to be able to ensure through other channels that our constituents' interests are properly looked after.
I regret to say that in the case of Bracknell primary care group's application for trust status, the disgraceful way in which the application has been handled by Bracknell regional health authority, the cavalier manner in which my letters have received no reply and the way in which the primary care group has been treated by the arrogant Sir William Wells and his colleagues has caused me, unprecedentedly, to write to the Speaker and request this Adjournment debate.
I will say more later about the lack of reasons for the trust status application being refused. First, I shall turn the clock back a few months for the benefit of the Minister. Berkshire health authority, which has been nothing but co-operative throughout, made it clear, as I believe the Minister will confirm, that every primary care group in Berkshire should, if possible, obtain trust status at the same time--in April 2001. There are clear advantages across the county for all primary care groups to move to trust status at once.
Some 10 days ago, the regional health authority informed Slough, Reading, Wokingham and Newbury that they were to obtain trust status next April--but not Bracknell. Bracknell has an excellent reputation and outstanding doctors and health workers. As the Member of Parliament for the constituency for the best part of 18 years, I very rarely receive complaints about primary health care in the borough. The primary care group seemed an ideal candidate for trust status.
An initial vote of general practitioners did not support trust status. For other reasons, many of those voting voted against as a protest. That should not be a reason for the trust application to be turned down. Subsequently, there was a second and much more valid vote, in which only eligible general practitioners voted. As the Minister should be aware, in the first vote, locums and assistants voted, and the whole practice in Binfield had to be counted in the Wokingham vote because at that point it had not been transferred to the Bracknell primary care group area, even though Binfield is part of Bracknell Forest borough.
The second vote, for which all GPs were eligible, overwhelmingly supported trust status for the primary care group. In addition to that, all the other stakeholders are, like me, passionately in favour of the trust being set up as soon as possible. I refer to the excellent district nurses, health visitors, district midwives, community physiotherapists and speech therapists. They have all been
ignored by an overbearing regional health authority that has consistently neglected Bracknell, and by an arrogant chairman, Sir William Wells, who, I regret to say, does not even bother to reply to letters from Members of Parliament.The moment that I heard that Bracknell's trust status might not have been granted, I wrote to Sir William on 6 November. That was some time ago. I have not received an acknowledgement, let alone a comprehensive reply. One can understand how upset health workers in my constituency are when their Member of Parliament writes to the regional health chairman, marking the letter urgent, to say that he gathers that the chairman is about to turn down their application for trust status yet grant it to other primary care groups in the county, and to put forward an excellent case for trust status going ahead for Bracknell, only to be completely ignored. There has been no reply whatsoever. That, again, is the arrogant Sir William Wells.
A week later, on 13 November, after the primary care group had been summoned to the regional headquarters and had been told that its application had been turned down, I again wrote to the chairman asking why and complaining that the group had been given no reasons. By now, no one will be surprised to hear that the arrogant Sir William has, to date, not replied to me. He is a public servant, paid for with the hard-earned taxes of my constituents, and I know that the Minister will deeply disapprove of such a cavalier manner.
Let us briefly move on to when the Bracknell primary care group attended upon the regional health authority at its headquarters. No reasons were given for its application being turned down. It was told at the meeting that it was not allowed to take notes. I do not think that, outside the old Soviet Union, many doctors have to attend meetings where they are told by civil servants that they are not allowed to take notes.
A huge document was produced and Bracknell primary care group was told that it contained the reasons for the refusal of its application, that it had five minutes to read the document, but could not take it away and study it. Naturally, in five minutes one cannot get to the bottom of the reasons contained in such a comprehensive document. On 13 November, I asked Sir William Wells to give the reasons. If trust status has been turned down for an excellent primary care group, we have every reason to want to know why.
Additionally, and even more sinisterly, some members of the primary care group have been threatened with the fact that it would not be wise to go to their Member of Parliament or to cause trouble--that it would be best to stay quiet; otherwise future applications for trust status would not be granted.
The Bracknell primary care group was then told, under duress, to withdraw its original application because it would be turned down, and, if it was formally turned down, it would affect a future application. That is deeply unsatisfactory. As I suspect the regional health authority will have told the Minister, the application was withdrawn, so there are no problems.
Berkshire health authority has now suggested that there might be a virtual Bracknell primary care trust, whatever that means. It refers to it as a trust in all but name and law. That is a poor alternative; it is not the real thing. It means two upheavals: moving from group to virtual
trust and, if successful, in April 2002 to full trust status. No doubt Berkshire health authority, which has been supportive throughout, was trying to be helpful again, but it is not sufficient.I share the aspirations of the Minister and the Secretary of State, as does my shadow Cabinet colleague, the Opposition health spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that, wherever possible, trusts are a good thing because they give local people power to decide their own destiny. That is why the Government have rightly encouraged primary care groups to follow hospitals to trust status. Without trust status, the primary care group has to rely on the regional health authority. It is obvious from my comments that we have no confidence in that authority, especially under the chairmanship of the arrogant Sir William Wells.
The position is bad for the morale not only of doctors but of other stakeholders. It also means that for another year or 15 months, an unnecessary tier of bureaucracy will exist and local health workers and doctors will not be able to make their own decisions and continue to provide primary care effectively and efficiently to the benefit of my constituents.
I shall conclude by addressing specific remarks to the Minister. We now depend on her because the application for trust status has been turned down to date. She will realise that we have no faith in the region or Sir William Wells. Will she, as Minister, personally look at the application? I want it to be judged simply on merit. For those with professional expertise, it is inconceivable that other primary care groups in Berkshire have gained trust status while excellent Bracknell has not. We are confident that the Minister will reach the same conclusions if she examines the case on merit.
I should like confirmation from the Minister that it is incompatible with a free and open society, which she and I support, for an application for trust status to be turned down without the provision of reasons, which should be in the public domain. Members of the primary care group do not know the reasons and the Member of Parliament has not been given them. That inevitably casts a slur on everybody; the alternative is that the regional health authority and Sir William Wells have something to hide. Whatever the position, it is deeply unsatisfactory.
We are approaching the end of November; the trusts will be set up in April 2001. It is not too late for Bracknell to receive trust status because other areas in Berkshire to which I referred were granted their status only 10 days ago. I therefore urge the Minister to review the case, publish the reasons for the regional health authority's refusal to allow the application to proceed and, with the Secretary of State, to consider the future of Sir William Wells.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |