| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Quality and Safety of Human Tissues and Cells
- That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10122/03, amended draft Directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells; notes the additional set-up costs and annual running costs arising in the United Kingdom are now expected to be greater than originally anticipated, and in particular may require investment by fertility clinics to upgrade their facilities and practices, but recognises that these costs will be offset by significant benefits to patients, and
- therefore supports the Government's position that the proposed Directive, as presently drafted, is broadly acceptable.—[Mr. Ainger.]
PETITIONS
Oxclose Community Nursery School
8.47 pm
Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West): I present to the House a petition on behalf of the staff, parents and friends of Oxclose community nursery school in support of their efforts to keep the school open. The petition is signed by some 2,000 people from the communities of Washington in my constituency that would be most affected by the proposed closure. The petitioners believe that the school has produced excellent results with its experienced staff and that it is an asset that gives real benefits to the surrounding area and community.
The conclusion of the petition states:
- We, the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support our Declaration, and urge the Government to take steps to ensure that Oxclose Community Nursery School remains open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Planning Application (Cotswold)
8.48 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present a petition signed by 1,500 of my Cotswold constituents urging the Deputy Prime Minister to use his powers to call for a planning application to be considered by an independent planning inspector. The application is principally concerned with the dumping of a large quantity of construction waste from outside the area into the heart of the Cotswold area of outstanding natural beauty, thus increasing heavy goods traffic on narrow and unsuitable roads. The petitioners believe that the application is environmentally unsustainable.
The petition is signed by my constituent Mrs. Charlotte Heber Percy of Eyford house, Upper Slaughter, Nr. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.
- To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled
The Humble Petition of the Residents of the Cotswolds showeth
That Planning Application ref: CD/0165/1/S by Huntsmans Quarries Ltd. for Aggregates Recycling: Plant Area Rationalisation: Agricultural Restoration: Infilling, was passed on the 11th November 2003 by the Gloucestershire County Council on the casting vote of the Chairman.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House should urge the Deputy Prime Minister to use his statutory powers to call in this application and appoint an independent inspector to consider this application.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
NHS (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
8.50 pm
Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a crucial subject: the national health service and, in particular, the NHS in Wales. I am also grateful to be accompanied by a male voice choir from various Labour constituencies in Wales.
I strongly believe that it is appropriate for a Welsh Member to raise the subject, even though the Executive powers for running the NHS have been devolved to the National Assembly, because the power to raise the taxes that pay for the NHS across the UK resides here, the legislative framework within which the NHS operates is laid down here, and a number of measures dealing with NHS reform were debated and enacted here. So while the arrangements persist, Welsh Members of Parliament will be inextricably linked to the process of investment and reform within the NHS in Wales. If there were doubts about our right to raise the subject, we know from contact with our constituents that it remains the single most important domestic issue, so Welsh MPs are perfectly entitled to express a view on it.
The state of the NHS in Wales can be encapsulated in the old Welsh phrase, often found in school reports, of "nid da lle gellir gwell", loosely and charitably translated as "could do better". Although there have been significant improvements in the performance of the NHS in Wales thanks to the Government's record investment in public services, waiting lists are still unacceptably high and there is a danger that if the Assembly does not pursue reform as vigorously as it is pursued in England, the NHS in Wales will fall even further behind.
What is the current position? On 31 March 2003, no fewer than 74,600 people in Wales were waiting for in-patient treatment—14 per cent. more than were waiting on 31 March 1999. It is interesting to observe that over the same period, the resident-based in-patient waiting lists in England fell by 9 per cent.
Of those Welsh residents waiting for in-patient treatment on that date, 16 per cent. had been waiting for more than 12 months, compared with 0 per cent. in England, and 5,200 Welsh residents—7 per cent. of the total—had been waiting for more than 18 months for treatment. That is a bad position. In addition, several trusts are operating with deficits. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that there are unacceptable variations in performance between NHS trusts in Wales.
Of course, waiting lists and times are not the only measure of performance, but I believe that they are a crucial indicator of the extent to which extra investment is being used effectively. They are more than that, because behind the statistics are many personal histories of pain, discomfort, worry and uncertainty. I am sure that many hon. Members have shared the frustration
and sometimes the despair of constituents who have been left on the waiting list for far too long. That is far from Aneurin Bevan's vision.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly): Does my hon. Friend accept that in Gwent, some people on orthopaedic waiting lists have to wait four and a half years for the operation that they need?
Gareth Thomas: That is not a case of "could do better". It is a bad position that requires serious improvement, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents. It is worth emphasising that the deterioration in waiting times occurred in a period of unprecedented increased investment in the NHS in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) has eloquently made that point.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside): Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that Opposition Members—not one is here—believe that the NHS can be reformed without putting in any extra investment, and that the Assembly believes that it is a case of money without reform? Reform is essential if we are to improve the NHS in Wales.
Gareth Thomas: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Of course, reform must accompany investment. We should not take lectures from Conservative Members even if any were present. I assume that my hon. Friend referred to the official Opposition. If they had their way, the tax cuts that they envisage would create mayhem in the NHS in Wales. In fairness to the Assembly Government, they recognise that the extra investment must be accompanied by reform. The Wanless report was commissioned because of such recognition.
The conclusions of Derek Wanless were blunt and to the point, and he made several recommendations. He said:
- "The position in Wales is worse than in the UK as a whole . . . Wales does not get as much out of its spending as it should."
However, the Wanless report also recommended the need to stop funding deficits and to reward success and good performance with greater freedom and autonomy. If one speaks to those who have experience of managing a complicated organisation such as the health service, which has so many vested and competitive interests, they say that the political message from the top has to be clear and consistent. One expert commentator to whom I spoke said that the NHS needed to be "pushed". He did not mean that that should be done in an aggressive way that would undermine the important public service ethos, that underlies the health service. He meant that there needed to be consistent signals from the top. I strongly believe that we need to give a stronger steer to NHS management on the need to reduce waiting times. We need to insist on detailed scrutiny of where all this
extra money is going, and to learn—yes, learn—from what is being done in England, particularly through the Modernisation Agency.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |