NHS Reorganisation

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, and commend him for it. The joint cross-party arrangements show how strongly we feel. I have to depart from the hon. Gentleman, however, when I talk about the strategic health authority. Five Members of Parliament for Suffolk invited their SHA to answer a series of questions, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were there. The questions were answered in two ways: the SHA could not help, either because the decision was a Government one or because it was a PCT one. There was no question to which the SHA replied, ““Yes, we can do that.”” It cannot do anything. There is no known position on which the SHA contributes at all. Unfortunately, it has not done the one thing it should have done—overseeing the PCTs to ensure that they did not get into the debt they are now experiencing. The fact that the SHA was unable to do that shows that SHAs have no purpose whatever. My PCT is very much in debt, as are all the Suffolk PCTs except Waveney. One of the reasons for that debt is that on average, under the funding formula, for every 100p we receive 90p, while Manchester receives 124p, yet we have a high proportion of old people. The formula hits us strongly; it is not entirely overspending but underfunding that has contributed to the debt. The unfortunate changes in the way that the funds are doled out have hit rural areas with large numbers of old people. Because of those numbers we used to receive sufficient funding, but that is no longer the case. Labour Members say that we do not have the hospital closures that used to take place, but there are two in my constituency: a full closure in Felixstowe and a half-closure in Aldeburgh. That has happened since the election. Interestingly enough, before the election, we were told that a reorganisation would take place and a perfectly reasonable plan was proposed that would improve patient care. I supported that plan. I took the chair of the meeting to encourage people who had doubts about it that that was the reasonable thing to do. Immediately after the election, it was announced that that plan was no good and that those involved had found a new model of patient care. That happened in two months—it was a very clever, speedy change—and during that time, PCT announced that their new model patient plan involved the closure of one hospital and the halving of the other. That was an interesting decision, but we were told that it had nothing to do with money or the general election. I found that most of my constituents were unable to take that quite as literally as it was put. The problem is that my constituents see a model of care that makes the NHS in my area worse than it has been for 30 years. So I thought that I would ask the Minister a series of simple questions. About a fortnight ago, I asked when the financial and management specialist team would report its findings. I just asked for the date. The answer from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) was:"““I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.””" I then asked how many people made up the team and how many days they spent investigating, and the answer was:"““I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.””" I then asked what representative bodies the group discussed things with, and the answer was:"““I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.””" I then asked the Secretary of State for Health:"““what sanctions are available to her against a primary care trust and its board members should poor administration be found by the financial and management specialist team.””" Anyone would think that she ought to know that, but the answer was:"““I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.””" I then asked:"““will she require the NHS Appointments Commission to change its policy of reappointing chairmen and non-executive members of primary care trust boards where those appointees have presided over trusts that are failing or under investigation.””" The answer was:"““I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.””" The Minister could have said, ““Yes,””““No,”” or, ““I’m thinking about it””—but no, there is the same cursory attitude to Members of Parliament who seek information as there is to local people when they go in for consultation. The consultations are a sham, and the only intention is to reach the same conclusion as the Government have decided on anyway. To reappoint to my failing PCT the same people who have presided over the debts, which must now be paid by patients in my constituency, is a scandal.