Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Andy Burnham): As it approaches its 60th anniversary, our NHS is providing a better and better service to the British public. Today, care is available to those who need it more quickly and conveniently and to higher standards than ever before. That progress has been made possible by those who had the political courage to vote for more investment in health and those who have always stood by the NHS throughout their political lives. But it is mainly down to the NHS staff and, yes, NHS managers, who have had the courage, too, to challenge old ways and make changes. It is not change for changes sake, but change for a clear reason: to place the NHS on a path of improvement. It is that improvement that brings us to the point at which the end of waiting and waiting lists as we have known them since the beginning of the national health service is in sight.
For far too long, the debate about health care in this country has been dominated by the interests of acute hospitals. That point is perfectly and depressingly illustrated by the stale Conservative motion before us, which represents old Tory thinking. The real story of what is happening in our NHS today is that we are seeing the beginning of the breakdown of the barriers between not only primary and secondary care, but the health service and local government.
We got no vision from the Tories today and heard no answers about what Tory health policy would involve. Instead, we had to turn to our doctor from Dartford and our nurse from Crawley, who made outstanding contributions of piercing clarity. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said that hospital admissions were a failure of health policy and that they often happened because care was not in the right place. He called for more integration of primary and secondary care, and that will be the precise effect of the 18-week policy that the Government are following.
Mr. Lansley: If everything is so marvellous, will the Minister explain why, of the 3,000-plus doctors who replied to a poll carried out by doctors.net.uk, 56 per cent.more than halfsaid that there had been no improvement in the NHS since 2002, as The Times reported on Monday?
Andy Burnham: The improvements in the national health service are plain for all to see. Waiting lists are at their lowest ever level. In my job, I care about patients, and last years figures from the Healthcare Commission show me that nine out of 10 patients rated their care as good or better. That is a massive improvement on the NHS that the hon. Gentlemans party left the country, and that is the figure on which I base my comments.
GPs and consultants are working in much greater partnership to provide better services and to keep people out of hospital. On Monday, I visited the Longsight health centre in Manchester to see how a range of tier 2 ENTear, nose and throatorthopaedic and incontinence services, which were formerly delivered at the Manchester Royal infirmary, were being provided out of hospital in a local inner-city health centre. That is, to use the title of the motion, the
Reconfiguration of acute hospital services
but it is not bad news. Everyone wins: patients find the service more convenient and personal; GPs can extend their work and professional reach; and hospital consultants can make better use of their skills and time by seeing only the patients whom they really need to see. As a result of that, waiting lists in Manchester have tumbled and the 18-week target will be hit a whole year ahead of schedulethis year in fact. The taxpayer wins, too, because NHS pounds are not being wasted by treating patients in hospital when they do not need to be there. That is our vision for the future of the health service. Let us at least hear the vision of the Conservative party, although nothing came forward from Conservative Members today.
In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) gave a clear and articulate vision of how the health service was developing in her area. There is a new hospital, supplemented by a maternity and oncology buildingthere has been £65 million of investment from the Governmentwhich is supported by new primary health care centres in her constituency.
We heard an incredible and intemperate contribution from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He came dangerously close to admitting that he should have voted for the extra money for the health service a few years agotoo late mate, I am afraid; we needed that vote then, not now. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no improvement and that the Government were increasing the suffering of his constituents, but that is complete and utter nonsense.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to attack a Member who is in the Chamber without giving him a right to reply?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether or not Ministers give way is entirely a matter for them.
Andy Burnham:
The hon. Gentleman may see it as an attack, but I would just treat it as a fact. In 1997, 30,000 patients in the NHS south-east coast area were waiting more than 26 weeks for treatment. That figure
has fallen to three. He should treat that as a fact, rather than an attackthen we would all be better off.
Mr. Wilshire: A few moments ago, the Minister accused me of saying that my constituents will suffer because of his Governments actions. It was not I who said that, but a consultant.
Andy Burnham: I will read the hon. Gentlemans speech tomorrow in Hansard, but he should be thoroughly ashamed of it because it bears no relation to the facts on the ground about the national health service today. I would be interested to hear from a consultant who agrees with the speech that the hon. Gentleman made.
Colleagues have made points about the quality of the consultations that the NHS carries out. I agree with Opposition Members who say that, at times, the NHS needs to raise its game. For that reason, the chief executive of the NHS asked Sir Ian Carruthers to work with strategic health authorities in considering their proposals for service change. That work has been completed, and I am pleased to say that next week we will bring forward its findings, which I am sure will be of interest to every Member. The issue is important, and all colleagues are right to say that we need the highest-quality information in the public domain, so that our constituents can make the right judgments on important matters.
However, there is a responsibility on Members of Parliament, too. If the NHS raises its game and does better at providing consultations, there is a responsibility on Members not to scaremonger, rumourmonger and portray every change as a cut. There is responsibility on all MPs to lead the public debate in their area. Where health changes represent human progress, MPs have a responsibility to back them, but todays debate was all about scaremongering.
Let me quote a spokesperson for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust responding to a Conservative party press release that said that 29 accident and emergency units were lined up for closure, one of which was run by the trust:
There is no threat to either the A&E or casualty services provided by the trust. Neither the trust nor the PCT were contacted by the Conservative party press office to check the accuracy of their research. We have made it quite clear to them that their statement should not have included reference to RCHT and have asked for it to be retracted. Misrepresentative statements such as these are upsetting not only to our staff members but also because of their potential to lead to unnecessary scaremongering and concern among our local community.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Did my hon. Friend know that the Opposition health spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), came to my constituency of Huddersfield and played the same trick, and had to be admonished by the deputy chief executive for misleading the public?
Andy Burnham:
That is what the Opposition are doing. They are creating websites and setting up campaigns, but since the press release it has been
established that there were no plans to change the accident and emergency services in 12 of those 29 hospitals.
Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that I had been to Huddersfield and made certain points while I was there. I have not been to Huddersfield in recent years, and have not made points of any kind there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The travel arrangements of a Member of the House are not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |