Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman could choose his words more felicitously. It is not the practice of the House to make such implications--let alone directly to accuse a right hon. or hon. Member of misleading the House.
Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to imply anything other than a need to find out on which of the statements I could rely.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. In that case, the hon. Gentleman might do the House a service by correcting his words or apologising suitably for them.
In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall rephrase my point. On which of the Prime Minister's points of view could I place most reliance?
Later in the same week, the chairman of the Association of London Health Councils telephoned No. 10 to find out whether it was true that there would be an opportunity for further consultation. She was told by the press office that
10 Jan 2001 : Column 1158
the Prime Minister had made a slip of the tongue and that community health councils would be abolished. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked the Secretary of State for the precise date on which the Prime Minister and Secretary of State decided to abolish CHCs. An answer to that question would give us the opportunity to assess whether there was in fact any prior consultation.
We should consider the effect of these events--the Secretary of State should certainly consider it--on the employees and volunteers at CHCs. While we are dealing with crass shortcomings in due democratic processes, let me quote two letters from the chief officers of my local CHCs, written last November and December--five to six months after the bombshell was dropped in "The NHS Plan" that CHCs would be scrapped. Mr. Ryall-Harvey, chief officer of Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC wrote to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who copied the letter to me. Mr. Ryall-Harvey wrote:
I should remind you that the jobs of all CHC staff were put at risk following the announcement of the abolition of CHCs over the internet and without prior consultation on 27th July. It is now mid-November and the Secretary of State is refusing to discuss the legitimate concerns of CHC staff with either their Unions or in individual correspondence. He has refused to make an announcement on TUPE transfers or on clearing house arrangements. These are not the actions that one would expect of the NHS as a responsible employer and they do not sit well with Mr. Milburn's recent speech on improving the working lives of people who work in the NHS.
I find it difficult to understand the motivation for this behaviour and it simply adds credence to Dr. Liam Fox . . . I am extremely concerned about the effect this situation is having on my staff and colleagues. I feel that whatever the experience individual politicians have been of their local Community Health Councils, they should recognise that CHC staff . . . many with long service . . . deserve to be treated decently.
Given the major initiative embodied in the Bill and other aspects of the Government's approach to the health service, the hon. Gentleman should surely tell his constituent that there will be tremendous opportunities for CHC workers and volunteers in the new NHS.
I shall not use my short time to answer that question. This is a matter for the employers, particularly the Secretary of State.
On 22 December--just before Christmas--the chief officer of Cheshire Central CHC wrote:
The NHS in the regions has been ordered to undertake rapid consultation on the Plan. We went to a meeting on 12 December when we were "reliably" told by the NHS Executive that the second reading of the Health and Social Care Bill would be in February. Yesterday, the day before the Christmas break was to start, we were informed it will be on 10 January. This makes the rushed consultation exercise an absolute farce. The government has again got its timing just right to achieve maximum gloom for CHC staff.
The Minister should take this opportunity to do the right thing and provide answers to those concerns. I was pleased to secure a one and a half hour Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 28 November, which was attended by many right hon. and hon. Members from the Labour Benches who seemed not to support the Government. I believe that their support was absent for good reason. The same has been the case today, although the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)
10 Jan 2001 : Column 1159
was entirely opaque about whether he thought CHCs should continue. Labour Members wish to welcome the plan, but are ashamed of their Government.
I am sorry to have been opaque. I do not think that CHCs should continue. The vision set out in the Bill and other documents provides a far better way in which to empower and involve patients in the future of the NHS. I hope that that is clear.
I am grateful for that clarification, which is better than the hon. Gentleman achieved in his speech. Government Back Benchers in general are ashamed of this aspect of the proposed NHS plan--
That is why they signed the early-day motion.
As my hon. Friend says, many signed the early-day motion.
The Government showed breathtaking arrogance in their assertion that consultation had taken place prior to the decision to scrap CHCs. That was a sorry and sad spectacle of shameless window dressing. They should now drop their plans to scrap CHCs and should instead resource and improve them, as my party is committed to doing, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made plain. We should support CHCs by providing resources and giving them confidence in their job, which involves dealing with vulnerable members of our society. That is because, when things have gone wrong, NHS patients need to be able to trust the independence of those who will take up their case for them, and the last thing that they are likely to trust is a creature of the very body that they are trying to hold to account.
I fear that the Government thought at one point of sidling away from scrapping CHCs but were scared of looking as though they were caving in to outcry, either from Her Majesty's official Opposition, or from their own Back Benchers. For what it is worth, I should like to offer Ministers a deal: if the Government now execute a U-turn and do not exterminate CHCs, I for one shall refrain from calling it a U-turn. CHCs and NHS patients truly believed that, at Prime Minister's questions on 15 November, the Prime Minister had his hand on the steering wheel ready to make that U-turn. However, it is clear that the Secretary of State for Health and his civil servants had grabbed the wheel by 20 November.
I fervently hope that CHCs will be retained. If so, their future quality will rest primarily on their independence and effectiveness in ensuring that NHS patients' interests have the opportunity to be taken through the maze that the NHS naturally represents to most people. One of the most valuable services performed by CHCs, as Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have said, is that they are a friend in need who knows how to map a route through the maze. I do not believe that the plethora of proposed new bodies will simplify the system or enhance confidence, or that they can command the trust of patients at their most vulnerable. That is especially true of the elderly, who fear that they will need to use the NHS fairly regularly and do not want to gain a reputation for complaining. The new bodies are hardly likely to alleviate
10 Jan 2001 : Column 1160
those fears. CHCs have generally done a tremendous job in recent times, especially in ensuring that there is a degree of trust.
I am conscious that it is unlikely that Ministers will be swayed by a member of the Opposition, as that reflects their approach to Parliament, but it might be helpful to my case to cite the views of people who live in the catchment area of the CHCs serving my constituency. Mrs. Cynthia Taylor writes:
I am sorry to hear of the proposed demise of the CHC. I feel that the proposed five agencies will not be in the patients' interest . . . The council needs to be independent, not involving the trust in any way. The CHC was helpful to me in my complaint against
the local hospital. She adds that
the CHC did a pretty good job. The proposed new council sounds like just another quango to me.
Mrs. Taylor says that "Healthwatch"--a local health magazine--
reflects the view of ordinary folks
that CHCs should continue, and she ends by asking, "or don't we matter?" Denise Pritchard of Tarporley writes:
The multiplicity of Ministers in the present government should, I feel, have in each of their offices a large notice--"If it ain't broke don't fix it". They seem unable to resist the temptation to change things and the changes they make are of doubtful value and usually cost more!
I have a number of letters, but there is not enough time to read them all out. Supportive comments for the retention of CHCs have been made by the Law Society and the British Medical Association, although, interestingly, Dr. Ian Bogle was a signatory to the NHS plan. Age Concern, despite an earlier reference to it, says:
Many older people and their relatives have received support from Community Health Councils . . . , which they value for their independent perspective.
I urge Ministers to consider the enormous amount of evidence from those with past experience and all those who are concerned about the quality of the NHS and patient care. CHCs should not scrapped, but supported, developed and given the resources to do the fine job which we know they can do.