Wanstead Hospital

Debate between Lord Cryer and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I wish to thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on the closure of Wanstead hospital in Redbridge in north-east London in my constituency.

Wanstead hospital has not existed as a full general hospital since it closed in 1986. It is where my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) was born 62 years ago—it is his birthday today, so I wanted to mention it. Hon. Members will have noticed all the bunting hung outside to celebrate that event, and he is happy for me to point it out. What remains of Wanstead hospital are two intermediate care wards called Heronwood and Galleon. The care is usually provided to elderly people who have perhaps been ill or in hospital and are not well enough to go home, and they need intermediate care before they can return to their homes.

This issue affects not only the London borough of Redbridge but three London boroughs: Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham, and Havering. It stretches from the boundary of Redbridge in the west to the boundary between Havering and Essex in the east—a huge swathe of north-east London. The plan is to take the three boroughs, cut all the intermediate care beds—there are currently 104—and reduce them to 40 beds located at King George hospital in Ilford. Apart from anything else, that is six miles from Wanstead so it is a long way for people in my constituency, many of whom are elderly, to travel. The facility in Dagenham at Grays Court is being closed, and the biggest facility is Wanstead hospital, which has 48 intermediate care beds over the two wards. We have already lost 35 beds in St George’s hospital—not to be confused with King George hospital—which is in Hornchurch in Havering and is an old RAF hospital. Those beds were lost last year and the plan is now to concentrate all the intermediate care beds in one place in Ilford at King George hospital.

The ongoing consultation has been produced and launched by an obscure and unaccountable group led by chief officer Conor Burke and the chairman, Dr Mehta. This group is not a clinical commissioning group; it has an overall strategic planning role above the CCG. Conor Burke and Dr Mehta are accountable to a small board that is made up of representatives of the three CCGs from those boroughs—hardly a shining example of democratic accountability.

It is basically a deeply flawed consultation. I was told by Conor Burke and Dr Mehta on 13 June that they might possibly be engaging in a consultation that would lead eventually to the closure of what remains of Wanstead hospital and those two wards. They did not volunteer that information; they said that there might possibly be a consultation only because I asked what the future held for Wanstead hospital. They said not that it was closing at that point, but that there might be a consultation. I asked three times for an assurance—which I received—that I would be informed as soon as the decision to consult on the future of Wanstead and the other facilities was made. I was not told about that decision. I found out about it only on 18 July when I received a letter with a consultation document stating that the consultation was already under way. If they treat elected representatives like that, God knows how they treat members of the public. It calls their track record into question.

The consultation document has not been made widely available, and I receive e-mail after e-mail saying that it is difficult to get hold of it or access it online. It is not in the libraries, GP surgeries or community centres—at least not the ones that I or anybody I know frequent. The document sets out a series of options, and then states, “This is the option we want.” It is clearly pushing respondents in a particular direction. That is not a clear, fair or neutral consultation. They are saying, “We’ll set out a few options for you, but this is the one we want, and if you respond, we want you to support this option.” That is clearly what the consultation document says, as anyone will see, if they can actually get hold of it. Only a couple of hours ago, I received an e-mail from a constituent I know quite well who told me about her difficulty—she is an articulate, intelligent person—getting hold of the consultation document and then responding online.

Another great difficulty, and a point that has met with another rebuff, was the request to extend the consultation deadline. The consultation started in July and will end on 1 October, but there has been call after call to extend it until 31 October, because most of the current consultation period falls in the holidays and most people do not know it is happening. I have met scores of people in Wanstead and elsewhere, even people who have used the facilities, who do not know the consultation is up and running. One of the richest ironies of the process is that the newly elected health scrutiny committee on Redbridge council—all people elected on 22 May—clearly requested an extension to 31 October, but so far the health tsars in north-east London have said it is not necessary.

The plan put forward by the senior health managers was to create two teams. The community treatment team, which provides care in people’s own homes—I have nothing against that, but I think we need the intermediate care beds as well—is not available after 10 pm, and the intensive rehabilitation team stops at 8 pm. It is promised that the CTT will respond to any call within two hours, but if someone needs help at 3 o’clock in the morning, when both teams are off duty, they will need to call the out-of-hours service or the emergency services, which I think is inadequate for a lot of people in need of intermediate care.

Both teams are up and running and seem to have done a good job. The reaction from the public who have received their care has been very positive—I cannot dispute that. However, we now see a proposal to introduce massive changes to intermediate care across a huge swathe of north-east London, including three of the biggest London boroughs—Havering is the second-biggest and Redbridge is one of the biggest—based on very little evidence. There have been intermediate care beds at King George for only a year, and the beds lost at St George’s in Hornchurch were cut only last year, in 2013, yet we now face a huge cut in bed numbers and their concentration in a facility that has been run for only a year, with two relatively new community-based teams, both based at King George hospital. The system is just not tried and tested. In my view and that of most of the people I represent—in my experience—we are not in a position to say the system will work, yet those beds will be lost, and once beds are lost, they are rarely got back.

The health tsars tell me that the beds are not being used. I dispute that. For one thing, last winter, which was very mild, 75 out of the 104 intermediate care beds were used. That is a relatively low number, but, as I say, it was a mild winter. If this or next winter is very cold and harsh and intermediate care beds are needed, we will only have 40 located at King George, rather than what we used to have, which was three far more accessible facilities across the three boroughs. I am being told stories off the record—nobody has gone on the record—by NHS staff and constituents that people are being turned away from Wanstead hospital and sent to King George in Ilford in order, I can only imagine, to massage the figures. I am also told by doctors and nurses who work for the health service that it is quite difficult to get into Wanstead hospital. Again, that will bring down the bed occupancy figures, adding grist to the mill of the senior health managers who are keen on getting bed occupancy down, so that they have a perfect justification for closing Grays Court and Wanstead hospitals and putting 40 beds in the King George hospital.

The Minister will be acutely aware, I imagine, of the difficulties experienced by local hospitals, by which I mean general hospitals. Queen’s hospital in Romford has faced enormous difficulties, as I am sure she will be aware. Capacity at Queen’s was forced down because the Care Quality Commission felt that the hospital was not capable of dealing with the relevant number of people—particularly in maternity, but in other areas, too. Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency has also had significant problems, receiving a series of very critical reports from the CQC.

King George hospital, where the intermediate beds are planned to be located, has been under threat of closure for years. It is only because of the stalwart efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South and others in campaigning to keep the hospital open that it is still there. It could close at some point in the future. Against that background, with all those problems in the acute trusts across north-east London, it seems to me that taking out all the intermediate care beds with huge cuts and putting in 40 beds in Ilford at the King George is, at best, a foolhardy decision.

Let me make one more point about the consultation—the lack of accountability. The whole process, in my view, has been deeply flawed. Perhaps the greatest talking point among my constituents is the pig-headed refusal to extend the deadline to the consultation until the end of October, which seems a fairly modest sort of request. The demand for it was overwhelming and the scrutiny committee elected on 22 May called for the extension, yet the senior health managers in north-east London seem absolutely determined to refuse that relatively modest request.

Why are these senior managers so unwilling to respond to public opinion? It is because they do not have to respond to public opinion. The two people responsible for this exercise were not elected. I am not saying that there was a glorious era when everybody running the NHS was elected—such an era never existed—but these two people were certainly not elected and they are not particularly accountable. If they are at all, it is to a fairly obscure board, indirectly appointed. That has resulted in a process that provides a pretty disgraceful example of sweeping aside the wishes of local people, local councillors and locally elected representatives, and saying, “We know best. If only all these daft people would leave us alone and let us get on with it, we can make all the decisions and run the health service efficiently.”

I do not say this as a party political point, but I do not think the national health service was set up for the convenience of well paid senior managers whose wages are paid by the taxpayers I represent. The NHS was set up by Nye Bevan after the second world war in order to provide care for everybody. In future, we should move to a position whereby the people who use the NHS and run it at the sharp end should be far more involved in decisions about how to provide care that will always be free at the point of need. There has to be a change. This exercise has brought home to me just how unaccountable so many senior NHS managers are. If they are unaccountable, they will not care what the people who use the facilities for which they are responsible think. Their lack of accountability has to change in the long term.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I call the Minister.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Lord Cryer and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as I know he is getting into his stride now, but if he could pay attention to some of his language that would be helpful.

[John Cryer]

I apologise, and I withdraw that comment and will find another way of making my point at another time.

Returning to the subject of unemployment, we have been told by a number of Ministers, and especially the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, that people should be prepared to travel around the country. That goes back to the time of “uncle Norman” telling all of us—and I was one of them—to travel around the country in search of work.

I want to draw attention to a specific example. A constituent of mine lost his job some time ago. He was on jobseeker’s allowance for six months, and the local jobcentre in Leytonstone in my constituency was very helpful and provided the resources to allow him to travel to interviews around the country. He therefore found a job at the other end of country, in the north—following the advice of the Secretary of State and other Ministers—but he then found himself in difficulty, because he had to try to find resources for a deposit for accommodation and also living costs for the period between starting work and receiving his first pay packet. He was offered three alternatives. First, there was a crisis loan, but that can only be used for very narrow purposes so it was not available. Secondly, there was the advance to wages scheme, but that would only provide £50, which was not enough. Thirdly, there was the adviser discretion fund. That could have provided £300. The problem, however, is that that has now been cut to £100. Therefore, in circumstances of fairly widespread unemployment and possibly rising deprivation when we have been told that our constituents must travel around the country in search of work, the Government have cut the adviser discretion fund, thus making it more difficult for them to travel around the country—or any distance—in search of work.

The second subject I want to draw attention to is the vexed issue of the Building Schools for the Future programme. I have lost all seven BSF projects in my constituency. Seven schools were going to benefit from BSF projects, but all of them have now been cancelled. I think we all know why the Library keeps receiving inaccurate lists of cancelled projects. When the Tories and Liberals came into government they found that a number of contracts were about to be let so they thought, “We’d better cancel them quickly—put the boot in—to make sure that loads of these potential projects get cancelled.” They therefore rushed the list through in an inaccurate form because they did not do the background work—they did not allow the Department to do the research. As a result, we have inaccurate lists placed in the Library and then we get officials scurrying around again trying to revise them and put new lists in the Library.

Sadly, however, in my case it looks as if the list is accurate. I wish it was not. Some of the schools that would have benefited from a BSF project are literally crumbling. Teachers, pupils, governors, the heads and the support staff and others in these schools have been struggling for years under very difficult circumstances. Nobody would argue that we get brilliant teaching if we have great buildings, but the reality is that if teachers are teaching in a crumbling school that inevitably affects the quality of their pupils’ education. BSF provided the light at the end of the tunnel, and that light has now been extinguished.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and I both represent constituencies that fall within the boundaries of the Waltham Forest borough, and since the BSF announcement was made we have been requesting a meeting almost on a daily basis, but the Secretary of State for Education has not yet managed to get back to us to say we can have a meeting about an issue that goes to the very core of why we are Members of Parliament.

I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to consider having a quiet word with the Secretary of State and recommending that he pulls his finger out. I am sorry I made those slighting comments because I have just realised that the Deputy Leader of the House is a Liberal so I did not do myself any good, and I do not regret what I said. Perhaps he could have a quick word with the Secretary of State for Education, telling him to pull his finger out and meet my hon. Friend and I and the leader of the council as soon as possible.

My final subject, which I want to touch on very briefly, follows on from comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) about the referendum on the voting system. We are in a surreal situation. The only one of the three major parties that went into the election with a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote versus the first-past-the-post system was the Labour party. Personally, I am a supporter of first past the post. I thought it was absolute nonsense sticking that in our manifesto—but then, I did not write it. The two parties that are now in government went into the election, when in opposition, without any commitment to a referendum on AV or first past the post; yet now they are in government, they propose to have one.

This will not sort out the issue for Liberal MPs, because what they want is proportional representation. Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister would love that, because if we had PR he could go into meetings in back-rooms, ditch all sorts of commitments he has just fought the election on—such as on the replacement of Trident—and go back to the voters and say, “I did stand on all those commitments but sadly I’ve had to dump them all because I’ve done a deal with the Tories.” He would love such a system, and if we ever have that kind of future in British politics, that really will be a menace.