| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Naysmith: The Minister will have gathered from my earlier intervention that I like to think that the aim of the changes that are taking place in Bristol and the south Gloucestershire area is to make the whole health community, as she described it, more efficient and work more effectively. That means that there will be no loss of any clinical specialties that are currently there, but that they may be moved from one site to another. I understand much of what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said and agree with a lot of it, but does she agree that the important thing is that patients in south Gloucestershire and Bristol as a health community end up with a much better service, irrespective of where the changes have to take place?
Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I can certainly confirm that there is considerable scope in existing arrangements for services to local patients to be much improved as a result of whatever changes are made to the existing configuration. The hon. Member for Northavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) will understand that there are various possibilities, all of which contain scope for improvement. We would not expect to see any loss of service at all from the changes.
To address my hon. Friend's point on the health economy and the need for balance in it, it is envisaged that the time scale in which the changes are likely to take place will take us beyond existing financial issues in the area. Those will be dealt with before those changes, as a precursor to them. The changes will not be a response to any financial deficit issues in the local economy, but are about considering with excitement the possibilities for
better service provision for patients to ensure that they receive not just the same but better services in the future. Those services should not only remain the same in quantity, but should be improved in quality.When the hon. Member for Northavon conducted his questionnaire, residents may have responded to it without necessarily having the full benefit of the facts on the current services or future proposals. That is partly because the local NHS has been undertaking an extensive public engagement exercise since the end of January, and has been promoting its proposals through the local media, including papers, television and radio. About 10 public meetings have been scheduled, and five have already taken place—one of them, I believe, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have heard his remarks about the invitation list at various meetings, and I am sure that the strategic health authority wants to manage the process as sensitively as possible. It will have listened to his views on the possibility of extending the invitation list on appropriate occasions to ensure that the wider picture is reflected.
It is welcome that the hon. Gentleman has conducted an exercise, but the local NHS is also conducting a series of wide engagements, in which the local media are playing a major part. Following those exercises, the results will be collated in a public report, due to be published in June. I understand that the early results show high levels of satisfaction with the format of the public engagement meetings, notwithstanding the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
As I mentioned earlier, it is our policy that primary care trusts, in partnership with other local NHS trusts and the strategic health authority, decide the priorities
for the NHS locally. That is where specific local knowledge and expertise lie, and it is not appropriate for Ministers to decide on that direction of travel, or on how services should be configured. We have made that clear in general, and I want to make it clear again in this particular context.
Mr. Webb: Where is the democratic accountability if the strategic health authority decides to close my local hospital? Whom do the electors hold accountable for that decision?
Miss Johnson: In the exercising of its powers, the strategic health authority is accountable to the Department and ultimately, therefore, to this place. I should make it clear, however, that the view that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed—that Frenchay hospital might close completely—is nothing other than a suggestion on his part at this stage.
It is right that the local NHS should take such decisions, and it is important that those Members who have attended this debate continue to work with the local NHS to build a better future for residents in the area. Whatever the decisions that are reached locally, they will have been made after full and public consultation, and after much consideration and open debate. The strategic health authority will listen carefully, because that is one of its roles; indeed, it is important that it do so.
I cannot comment further on this matter. In case—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
- Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |