| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.24 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): I shall not delay the House, except to rise in support of the Bill and to say that, despite the United Kingdom's rich maritime history and in contrast to what happens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, English Heritage—the lead agency for managing physical remains and the historical environment in England—is not responsible for marine archaeology; the Bill will redress that situation.
At the moment, we are failing to act to protect our national historical heritage, and the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) will correct that. I am delighted that the Government and all the hon. Members who have spoken so far in this brief debate wish the Bill well and hope that it receives its Second Reading. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be debated in Committee.
2.25 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I want to add just a brief word in support of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) has so skilfully steered to this stage of its proceedings. It is now pretty obvious that he has persuaded the House of the Bill's merit, and time has fortunately permitted a debate to take place. The Bill was considered fully in another place, as he said, so we can look at it from our perspective in the light of that knowledge.
I very much welcome, for example, clause 4 on the new trading functions of the commission. The Bill has been widely welcomed, and there is no doubt that it will allow
the great inherent strengths of our heritage to be fully exploited—in the best possible meaning of that word. However, I want to put down a tiny marker, which hon. Members may want to consider in Committee.I am always interested when a Bill contains provisions such as those in clause 3(2), which states:
- "If the Secretary of State directs the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission . . . to exercise functions . . . the Commission shall exercise them."
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
- That the Speaker have leave of absence on Tuesday 22nd January to attend the funeral of a close personal friend.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Mitcham Cottage Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.27 pm
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): I am pleased to have secured this debate on an issue that is very dear to the hearts of my constituents—the future of the former Mitcham cottage hospital, the Wilson. It is no exaggeration to say that I speak for virtually all my 70,000 constituents—no matter what their politics—when I say that they would dearly love the Wilson to re-open its doors as a hospital. It is also no exaggeration to say that the people of Mitcham had, and still have, a strong and proud affection for the Wilson—it was, and is, cherished.
I can do no better to sum up the feelings of Mitcham people than to quote from a handful of the huge number of supportive but unsolicited letters that I have received since I took up the issue in December. Mr. John Brett of Imperial Gardens, Mitcham wrote:
- "Having been born in Mitcham 75 years ago I know what an asset it would be for local people, especially the elderly as patients and visitors. I am sure that the growth in Mitcham's population warrants the need for the Cottage Hospital."
- "I am behind you 100 per cent. It should never have been closed. I have been a patient of the Wilson having had both my hips replaced and received the best of care and attention. I cannot speak highly enough of the surgeons, doctors and nursing staff that attended me."
- "It would certainly be handy for the elderly of the borough who now have at least two buses to catch to get to any hospital for treatment."
- "Congratulations on initiating the debate for giving the Wilson Hospital back to the people for whom it was a gift! For years we have felt cheated, and in the beginning we fought to keep it open. You have our full support."
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Siobhain McDonagh: Dr. Alan Cohen, a local GP and chair of the East Merton and Furzedown primary care group, wrote:
- "I am sure that it will not surprise you to know that it has been a stated aim of the Primary Care Group since our inception to provide clinical services at the Wilson . . . The PCG would very much like to put clinical services in the Wilson, but are currently prevented from doing so by the Health Authority insisting on using it for offices."
As a local councillor for 16 years in the 1980s and 1990s, I was involved in the campaign to keep the Wilson open. It was a strong and determined campaign, and we achieved a marvellous amount with next to no resources. In spite of initially being successful in preventing its closure, in the end we failed. We were let down by false promises from Conservative Health Ministers. It has been a constant regret to me that we failed.
Towards the end of last year, I took up a campaign in my constituency to urge Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, and the new south-west London strategic health authority, which is poised to replace it, to find alternative office accommodation to clear the way for the re-introduction of clinical services at the Wilson. Not only is the transition from the health authority to strategic health authority the perfect moment to restate the case for the Wilson, but it is crucial to me that the people of Mitcham are not elbowed to the back of the health queue again.
My campaign includes a petition signed by a large and increasing number of constituents that I plan to present to the House early next month. The campaign has gained eager support from local people of all ages and backgrounds. They include local GPs, and speaking to them has brought home to me the fact that Mitcham—which is part of the East Merton and Furzedown primary care group—is very much a victim of health inequality.
East Merton primary care group is some £4 million over target compared with Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth primary care group, which is £3 million under target despite similar levels of deprivation. The extra spend comes from the greater use of secondary care services by GPs in East Merton, as there has not been the investment in infrastructure in primary and secondary care from which Wandsworth has benefited so much.
Mitcham has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies and low birth weight pregnancies in the area covered by Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. Sadly and probably amazingly, Merton has the highest number of children put up for adoption in London. According to 1996 figures, Phipps Bridge ward, in which the Wilson stands, had the highest adult mortality rate in the borough.
Clearly, as well as crying out for the restoration of hospital facilities, there is much to be done to address the very real and disturbing health inequalities that people face in this area of my constituency. I understand that the public health department has been encouraged by local GPs to investigate the inequity between East Merton primary care group and Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth primary care group but, over the last two years, it has been unable to do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would offer some help to hard-pressed GPs in my constituency on this point.
My main objective in this debate is to ask my hon. Friend to offer an undertaking to my constituents in Mitcham and Morden that an option appraisal of intermediate care services in Merton can be carried out to assess the viability of reopening the Wilson as an intermediate care centre and as an extension to the intermediate care service, thereby serving the elderly and the infirm in the Mitcham area who are in need of hospital care.
All hon. Members are aware of the colossal pressure on our large NHS hospitals, such as St. George's in Tooting and St. Helier in Carshalton, both of which serve my constituents. The Wilson is equidistant between the two and could ease the pressure on acute beds in both. Indeed, many former cottage hospitals nationally could be pressed back into use to ease the pressure on acute hospitals and to provide care for the elderly who cannot be cared for in their homes.
I fully realise that there is an on-going debate on how best to deliver intermediate care—whether it should be in the patient's home or in dedicated beds at a resource such as a cottage hospital, which the Wilson has the potential to be. I understand from talking to local GPs that current evidence indicates that care at home with intermediate care nursing teams is probably more effective and better liked by the user of the service. I believe that encouraging independence by providing care in the home is absolutely right.
There are circumstances, however, when respite beds are necessary, for instance when a patient's home circumstances may be unsuitable, or when patients are suffering from dementia or some other severe infirmity that means that they need clinical care 24 hours a day. The Wilson could come into its own in those circumstances, relieving pressure by relieving bed blocking.
Considerable work has been done in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth area on intermediate care services. A domiciliary provider team currently managed by South West London Community NHS trust and five residential home beds with rehabilitation services attached are available to support the discharges of Merton patients from St. Helier hospital.
There are between 40 and 55 delayed transfers of care each week from St Helier, the split between Sutton and Merton residents being approximately two thirds and one third respectively. The most significant group that experiences those delays in both boroughs is composed of patients who are waiting for long-term nursing home or residential care. Intermediate care services in their current form would not provide an appropriate level of service for that group of patients. Additional intermediate care beds, with the appropriate rehabilitation input, would, however, undoubtedly allow the trust to discharge some patients much more speedily. That could happen at the Wilson.
In respect of intermediate care needs at St George's, a recent study on such care identified a need for 60 to 70 intermediate care beds across the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth area. For the area that St. George's covers in Battersea, at least 16 intermediate care beds are needed and the hospital has forwarded a proposal to the Department of Health to expand the intermediate care provision at the Bolingbroke hospital. Such intermediate care provision could also be provided at the Wilson.
On alternative offices for the health authority, I certainly would not want to hound the new strategic health authority out of Mitcham and Morden. I am pleased that such an organisation wants to have its base in my constituency. I acknowledge the good work done by the health authority and the work that its successor body will no doubt do. This is not about the individuals who have their office at the Wilson, but about the fact that that should not be at the expense of a hospital to serve the people of Mitcham.
I have done some research into the office accommodation available in Merton that is of a sufficient size—more than 1,000 sq ft—to house the new strategic health authority, its support groups and the primary care trust that will be co-located with it. With a bit of imagination and, more importantly, the will to move, the health authority could find office accommodation within a few miles of the Wilson. I hope that Merton's Labour council will assist the health authority to find a new home, just as it has made strenuous efforts to help Wimbledon football club find a site for a new stadium. For instance, the partially empty Brown and Root tower in Colliers Wood, just opposite Colliers Wood tube station, has more than enough space for the health authority. More controversially, perhaps, there is space in the soon-to-close Rowan school in Longthornton, which is a fine building in need of a new use. There are others, too.
I ask the Minister to give an undertaking to my constituents, the people of Mitcham and Morden, that an option appraisal of intermediate care services in Merton will be carried out to assess the viability of reopening Wilson hospital as an intermediate care centre. I further ask her to take steps to deal with the inequity between local primary care groups.
I have spoken a lot about the feelings of the people of Mitcham. As someone who has lived in the constituency all my life, I share their feelings. Mitcham has suffered over the years as its facilities and its civic pride have taken a battering. Reopening the Wilson would be a tremendous boost for Mitcham. It would give an entire community great pleasure to see it reopened for the purpose for which it was intended. Sir Isaac Wilson never intended to endow an office block. I therefore strongly urge the Government to respect his wishes, and the wishes of my constituents in Mitcham.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |