| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
WORK AND FAMILIES BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 20th December 2005.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Tony Cunningham.]
5 Dec 2005 : Column 708
WORK AND FAMILIES BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Work and Families Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other Act.—[Tony Cunningham.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Schemes (Amendment) (England) Scheme 2005, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved. .—[Tony Cunningham.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.—[Tony Cunningham.]
EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8630/05 and Addendum I, draft Council Directive on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and draft Council Decision amending Council Decision 80/424/EEC on expenditure for the veterinary field; and supports the Government's objective of agreeing measures for the control and eradication of avian influenza.—[Tony Cunningham.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11288/05, draft Council Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters; and supports the Government's position that the application of mutual recognition in this area will speedup and improve the transmission between Member States of evidence required to prosecute cross-border crime, whilst maintaining fundamental rights.—[Tony Cunningham.]
5 Dec 2005 : Column 709
SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2005 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Tony Cunningham.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
That the Films (Exclusivity Agreements) (Revocation) Order 2005, (S.I., 2005, No. 3098), dated 1st November 2005, and the Forensic Science Service Trading Fund (Revocation) Order (S.I., 2005, No. 3138), dated 10th November 2005, be referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation.— [Tony Cunningham.]
CROSSRAIL BILL
That Mr Brian Binley, Ms Katy Clark, Mr Phillip Hollobone, Kelvin Hopkins, Mrs Sian C. James, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr Alan Meale, Dr John Pugh, Mrs. Linda Riordan and Sir Peter Soulsby be members of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill.—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
That Ms Diana R. Johnson be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and Mr Austin Mitchell be added.—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: HOUSING, PLANNING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
That Mr Jim Cunningham be discharged from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee and Lyn Brown be added.—[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
5 Dec 2005 : Column 710
Health Services (West Cumbria)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): A preponderance of health-related issues and debates is raised at this time of year, and I am sure that that will be especially true if the forecasts of a harsh winter are even remotely accurate. The issues that I wish to raise are, sadly for west Cumbria, neither seasonal nor unusual, but endemic to the area. As one of the youngest Members in the House and as someone with the privilege of representing the constituency in which I was born and raised, I know that they have been a problem for 20 years. Stability in the west and north Cumbrian health economy is desperately needed, as two decades of uncertainty and anxiety have eroded the morale of staff and the confidence of patients throughout the area. That must change.
West Cumbria consists of approximately 150,000 people who are dispersed in towns and villages covering a huge geographical area that is served by a poor road infrastructure. Car ownership is in the lowest bracket in the country, and public transport is woefully inadequate. As a result, urban towns and rural villages, although often technically close to one another are isolated by the difficulties associated with the communications infrastructure. As regards health services, west Cumbria is covered by the West Cumbria primary care trust, the North Cumbria acute hospitals NHS trust and mental health and ambulance trusts established in the same area. All those trusts recently informed the public that they must fundamentally examine the way in which services in west Cumbria are delivered.
The PCT did so on 18 November, when it circulated to some staff, but not all, proposals for changing services in west Cumbria, including the closure of all beds in community hospitals in Millom, Keswick, Workington, Maryport and Cockermouth. The community hospital in Workington is brand new, and was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) about a year ago following new investment of £12 million. The proposals were sent to staff in the PCT, and an accompanying press release was sent to the media. Neither my hon. Friend nor I was notified, and we still await official notification. In the absence of that basic courtesy, I have relied on members of the PCT who have sent me anonymous copies of the proposals, and the reporting of the local and regional media. That is a scandal, which I utterly condemn.
Most importantly, given the difficulties posed by geography, the sparsity of population, low car ownership, poor public transport and an ageing population, the proposals to remove hospital beds from west Cumbrian communities were a disgrace. Moreover, they were made at a time when the NHS, both nationally and in north and west Cumbria, has received record levels of investment. It is not an exaggeration to say that our local health service has more money than it has ever had, and has received record injections of investment since 1997.
To avoid accusations of politicking, in preparation for our debate my office asked the House of Commons Library—an independent, non-partisan resource—to
5 Dec 2005 : Column 711
provide figures for investment in the West Cumbria PCT and its predecessor since the Government were elected in 1997. I was delighted to find that allocations for west Cumbria have increased by 96 per cent. over that period—effectively, they have doubled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and I began working for the withdrawal of those proposals as soon as we learned about them, and in doing so brought the matter to the attention of Health Ministers, including the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), who is present tonight. There are a number of reasons why Health Ministers were as aghast as me. First, the proposals make no sense given the record funding since 1997.
Secondly, the proposals do not reflect our manifesto pledge, which we made in May this year, to
"develop a new generation of modern NHS community hospitals . . . These state of the art centres will provide diagnostics, day surgery and outpatients facilities closer to where people live and work."
Thirdly, the proposals are entirely contrary to the very precise thrust of health policy in this country. The forthcoming White Paper will outline the details in the spring, but let us be clear about the policy direction. The Secretary of State for Health recently told a meeting of the NHS Alliance that
"we need to focus on primary health and community services—where 90 per cent. of people's contacts with the NHS take place".
In a truly refreshing and insightful address, my right hon. Friend also told the same audience that from the consultation undertaken by the Department of Health, it is clear that people
"want more care and treatment closer to home, in community hospitals or health centres—although we have to become much smarter at engaging people at an early stage in designing and considering options that involve fewer beds and other changes to acute hospitals alongside better services in the community."
That point is particularly telling, because the PCT consultation in west Cumbria was also launched against the background of what is likely to lead to a new acute hospital for west Cumbria. Like any new hospital in the UK, it would be smaller in size—I stress that services should not be diminished—which is right for the model of health care that is being progressed through not only national policy but, more importantly, through the advocacy of patients and health care professionals.
In short, any new acute hospital in west Cumbria—or a comprehensive refurbishment of the existing hospital, for that matter—will rely on a network of fully functioning, fit-for-purpose community hospitals. Consequently, those proposals threatened not only the community hospitals themselves, but the delivery of a new acute hospital by a separate trust—a quite incredible state of affairs. Will the Minister consider whether the community hospitals are in the wrong trust? Perhaps the acute hospital trust would be a better place from which to run community hospitals throughout west Cumbria, which is an idea that certainly makes sense to me.
The acute hospital in west Cumbria, the West Cumberland hospital, which is in my constituency, is an issue to which I hope to return at a later date, but for
5 Dec 2005 : Column 712
now I inform the House and the Minister that any new hospital must be of an equal status to the other acute hospital maintained by the same health care trust in Carlisle, in order not only to achieve social justice in the provision of health services in west Cumbria, but to deliver equality of access and equal standards of health care throughout north and west Cumbria.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |