| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ann Keen): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) on securing the debate. He has shown an acute interest in the welfare of his local health services, and in particular the cancer services, and I commend him for the dedication with which he serves the needs of his constituents. I am also pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) are present.
On 3 December 2007, the Government launched the cancer reform strategy, which sets out plans to improve further and develop cancer services across England over the next five years. It includes measures to improve cancer prevention, speed up the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, reduce inequalities, ensure that care is delivered in the most appropriate settings, and ensure that patients can access effective new treatments quickly. I am sure that we all can remember that at the time when our Labour Government came to power, patients with cancer were having to wait for many months, and sometimes a year or more, for treatment. The latest published data show that 93.9 per cent. of patients diagnosed with cancer start their treatment at the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology within 62 days of referral from their GP. That represents remarkable progress, and I commend the efforts of the staff in making it possible, backed, of course, by the financial commitment of the Government. We must not be complacent, however, and we must do more to achieve even more progress.
I have listened carefully to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South in support of the CCO. I am informed, as was stated at our meeting, that the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Network undertook on behalf of local NHS organisations a review of how and where patients in the area who require cancer treatment might receive it in future. Its purpose was to ensure that the aspirations of our Government’s cancer reform strategy are achieved locally.
The current situation in Merseyside is that most patients who require cancer treatment and who live north of the River Mersey travel to the CCO for that treatment. I am also advised—this is very worrying—that residents living north of the River Mersey experience the highest rate of cancer deaths in the locality. Indeed, the figures are some of the highest nationally.
Ben Chapman: If it is the case that a higher level of cancer deaths are suffered north of the river, would that not best be tackled by early diagnosis? I have seen no evidence that the travel time makes that statistic at all difficult.
Ann Keen: I hope that, as my speech progresses, we will come to a greater understanding of that issue.
I should restate that these are among the highest figures nationally, and currently these patients north of the Mersey, who make up 67 per cent. of the Mersey and Cheshire Cancer Network, face longer journey times to the CCO for treatment that may last only a matter of minutes. The review therefore made several recommendations. One of them was to look at the possibility of relocating some services from the CCO to the Royal Liverpool university hospital.
I am advised, and I understand that my hon. Friend has been too, that there is no immediate proposal to relocate the Clatterbridge centre to Liverpool in the foreseeable future. There is a recommendation to that effect by 2020, but that would require the development and approval of a formal business case, and full public consultation. I understand that the strategic outline case for these proposals will not even be complete until 2010-11.
At this stage, I should also point out that the configuration of services is a matter for the NHS locally. I am also happy to restate that no decisions on these proposals have been taken. It would therefore be totally inappropriate for me to intervene in this locally driven process or to comment on the options available. However, I am assured that any potential relocation will be subject to due diligence, and that the process will be objective, transparent and robust and will take account of all stakeholders.
Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend rightly says that if no decision has been taken and there remains an interest in the process of reaching any decision, it might be premature for her to intervene, but surely in order for that process to give consideration to the right principles and the right issues she can take an oversight view. When one is talking about potentially spending £150 million of public money in the wrong direction—my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) says that this is the wrong direction—surely that is a matter for her to examine and have a view on.
Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention because it gives us the opportunity to state again, as was made clear at our recent meeting in the Department of Health, that we should get involved in the process and that hon. Members must be involved in it. The cancer strategy and the cancer team were present at the meeting. I commend those present, as Members of Parliament for the area, for continuing to push for their constituents—that is what we expect them to do in this House—but at the same time they must have regard for local decision making, the way in which the consultation will be drawn up and how it is difficult at this moment for me to intervene in any way other than the way in which I am trying to help tonight.
I understand that these proposals were agreed in spring 2008 by all eight commissioning primary care trust boards. Again, this will facilitate access to treatment
for patients who endure some of the worst cancer outcomes in the country. We must commend PCTs in Cheshire and Merseyside for taking steps to address these issues. I must stress that these proposals concern providing additional radiotherapy services in the Merseyside area to meet the demand that I have outlined. I am assured that those additional services do not represent any removal of services from the Clatterbridge centre. In addition, I am informed there will be no job losses as a result of any of these proposals.
Ben Chapman: I apologise for intervening again, and I shall try not to do so again. Even if there is a case for transferring resource from Clatterbridge to Liverpool, such a move must reduce the critical mass at Clatterbridge. In any event, if such an approach is being taken, is there a case for having two facilities 5 miles apart—one at Aintree, where there is ample resource, and another elsewhere?
Ann Keen: The interventions are not a problem, because we have some time available to us. I know that this debate is important to hon. Members, and I welcome the opportunity to try to give reassurance wherever I can. Academic scientists and others are putting forward shocking figures to us that would lead hon. Members to develop their thoughts in that way.
I must say again that I am assured that these additional services do not represent any removal of services from the Clatterbridge centre. This package of developments will, in fact, require significant increases in the oncology work force. Today’s technology makes it possible to deliver most radiotherapy treatment close to where patients live. As typical radiotherapy treatments are delivered over a period of several days or weeks, it is beneficial to the patient to have to travel as little as possible to access this vital treatment—
7 pm
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr. Frank Roy.)
Ann Keen: I understand that a typical patient may make 15 daily visits to a radiotherapy unit during their treatment. I am informed that, based on optimum travel times for patients, the Aintree hospital in the north of the city was the preferred option. That will be a £15 million investment and will be funded and owned by the Clatterbridge centre, as well as operated by its specialist doctors, physicists and radiographers. I understand that the groundworks for a new building at Aintree hospital—I have noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton is in his place—are already underway, and that completion is planned by the end of 2010.
Mr. Kilfoyle: For the avoidance of any confusion among people who may or may not read Hansard, can the Minister confirm that two separate issues are under consideration? The first is about the extension of services to Aintree hospital in my constituency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) welcomes, as do I. The second debate is about what will happen down the track, but the current arrangements for Aintree hospital are welcomed by all parties.
Ann Keen: I am happy to reinforce that statement.
More action is needed to address the provision of radiotherapy services for residents north of the Mersey. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South that clinical reports, such as the one produced by Dr. Cottier of the national cancer services analysis team review, suggest that the majority—67 per cent.—of cancer sufferers requiring treatment live north of the Mersey. The additional services at Aintree are currently estimated to provide only 30 per cent. of the population needs from the north of the Mersey, and the remaining 70 per cent. will still need to travel to Clatterbridge for their treatment, typically on numerous occasions.
I am also informed that population and disease trend analysis suggests that demand for radiotherapy in Merseyside will rise by 26 per cent. by 2016, from a 2006 baseline. It is for these reasons that the Royal Liverpool University hospital has been identified as the preferred second location for additional radiotherapy services. I am informed that this proposal was put forward after considering the need for greater alignment of associated clinical services and specialist multidisciplinary teams for cancer. I also understand that the proposal has the potential to improve the strength of cancer research in Merseyside and Cheshire by developing closer links with the university of Liverpool and its Cancer Research UK centre, which, as my hon. Friend will agree, is an enormously valuable prospect.
Ben Chapman: I am taking advantage of the Minister’s kindness in allowing me to intervene again.
I cannot see why all those advantages cannot be gained by an extension of the location at Aintree, which has similar links to the University teaching hospital in Liverpool. I am just not persuaded that the case has been made for two locations. By all means let us provide better services for people north of the river, but why on two sites?
Ann Keen: I accept my hon. Friend’s reluctance to accept my argument during this debate. I feel confident that the argument will continue outside the Chamber. I ask him to look at the figures and to accept that the link with the university of Liverpool and its Cancer Research UK centre is, as I am sure he will agree, an enormously valuable possibility.
I am aware that Cheshire and Merseyside primary care trusts, with support from the cancer network, are in the process of developing a specification for the additional radiotherapy units. I have been informed that the latest position is that Cheshire and Merseyside PCTs will consider the proposal of additional radiotherapy provision north of the Mersey at Aintree and the Royal at their next round of board meetings in June of this year. It is important to note that this review, when fully implemented, will lead to a substantial investment in non-surgical oncology, as some £30 million is being invested to bring new radiotherapy treatment facilities north of the Mersey.
However, it is equally important that services are improved for Wirral and western Cheshire patients at the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology. It is crucial that any improvement builds on the current excellent performance and services offered to all patients by this specialist cancer trust, which was scored excellent for both quality of services and use of resources by the Healthcare Commission in 2007-08.
I am assured that the proposal to tender the radiotherapy service at the Royal Liverpool hospital will be in line with national competition policy and NHS cancer commissioning guidance. I am informed that although the detail is yet to be concluded, it is likely that potential providers will be invited to put forward proposals that identify how they would source capital and what implications that would have for unit costs and tariff. Clearly, the tendering process will be a “commercial in confidence” exercise, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. However, I hope that the Clatterbridge centre will be able to tender for that additional capacity in due course.
I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue to champion and support health services and, in particular,
cancer services in his constituency—as will all those who have spoken in tonight’s debate—and I encourage him to engage with the local organisations throughout the planning stages. The past 10 years have witnessed real progress in cancer services nationally. I hope that the proposals that he has brought to our attention today will make a real and tangible difference to the people of Merseyside. I know that the prevention of inequalities and the work that has to take place to reduce those figures and that worrying trend are also part of our work as Members of Parliament and as Ministers. I want to express my best wishes to all those involved in the process of achieving those aims.
7.7 pm
| Index | Home Page |