Hospital Services (Worcestershire)

Debate between Karen Lumley and Robin Walker

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Karen Lumley]

As you can see, Mr Hood, we have a debate among ourselves about where the cancer centre should be sited. Obviously, we in Redditch and Bromsgrove have the advantage of lots of space to build the cancer unit, and we have already started a local campaign to bring the unit to the Alexandra hospital.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for the point that she made. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) would acknowledge that the Worcestershire Royal hospital already has considerable expertise in cancer treatment. Will she join me in urging our right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, wherever such services end up being placed, they are supported, as they are a vital component of a strong and much needed cancer strategy for our county?

[Karen Lumley]

As you can see, Mr Hood, the feeling among us is quite strong. We have all campaigned together to try to secure a unit in Worcestershire and we are all very grateful that we are to get that unit—we just need to know where it will be. But wherever it is built, I am very pleased that, by the end of 2013, 95% of the radiotherapy and chemotherapy patients will be treated in Worcestershire. That is the message that we all want to get across. The ability of my constituents battling cancer to receive their treatment close to home and to know that the treatment is the best available will, I hope, make a real difference. The new facility will match the already excellent care that the trust offers—care that means that it was ranked in the top 20% of trusts in the national cancer patient experience survey.

The news of the radiotherapy unit and other successes is encouraging. However, like many other MPs, I am very concerned about the money that is spent providing locum doctors to cover staff shortages. I hope that the Minister will deal with that today. The number of locum doctors employed has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Trusts face acute shortages of middle grade doctors. Locum doctors are expensive. They should be used only to fill unforeseen gaps in staffing or when there is a dramatic increase in work load. They should not form part of the regular staffing arrangements as they do now.

We all know that we must make cuts in the public sector. However, I cannot see why my constituents should face reduced public services because money is being spent inefficiently. A cost-effective NHS will offer greater scope in how we care for people in our communities, both in Redditch and nationally.

The problem has been exacerbated by the European working time directive. Reducing—unnecessarily, I believe—the number of hours that doctors can work leads, of course, to a reduction in the number of hours covered by doctors available to hospital management. That is combined with the new strict immigration rules, which have resulted in far fewer doctors being able to emigrate from India and Pakistan and increased the pressure on hospitals as they try to fill an increasing number of vacancies.

The result in Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which has 24 vacancies at the moment, is that money that could otherwise be directed to caring for patients is spent on locum doctors, the agencies that they come from and the bureaucracy involved in short-term employment. If we are to succeed in reducing public spending, we can no longer rely on short-term solutions. I understand that the trust has been actively recruiting doctors from Poland and the Czech Republic. Initiatives such as that must continue. However, the idea being explored whereby non-medical roles are created to support rotas and treatment concerns me. The trust considers that option “undesirable”.

It is not only doctors in hospitals who are anxious about the impending changes. I have met GPs recently—I do so regularly—who have shared with me their concerns about the establishment of the NHS commissioning board. When each GP must be a member of a consortium, their job will have to include commissioning services. The doctors in Redditch whom I meet regularly are equally concerned about the unequal funding for shire counties. I hope that that will be addressed sooner rather than later. There are also concerns about the reorganisation taking away local knowledge of the complexities of our county and its problems. Bromsgrove and Redditch GPs will do their best for their patients—I hope that, when the changes are introduced, they will be fully skilled to do the best job that they can.

In summary, I am delighted that we are finally getting a cancer care unit for Worcestershire—I hope that it will be in Redditch. However, I hope that the Minister will address my concerns about the expensive use of locum doctors and the concerns raised by local GPs. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to local health care being delivered by local clinicians in our own localities.

Concessionary Travel

Debate between Karen Lumley and Robin Walker

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Weir, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank all hon. Members for giving up their time to attend this debate, which is about an important subject. Concessionary fares come with a history of controversy, and I have received many representations on the topic from my constituents. I hope that we get some clarification from my hon. Friend the Minister today.

Concessionary travel is vital to many communities, especially to the elderly, the disabled and those who live in rural areas, who would otherwise be cut off from basic services. Eleven million people in England qualify for the concession, which is no small number. Since the introduction of the scheme in Worcestershire in 2008, we have seen an 18% increase in the number of concessionary journeys made in the area, and the county has issued more than 100,000 cards.

The preservation of concessionary travel is a huge deal. For me, it is especially important to Worcestershire and my constituency of Redditch. When I was a Redditch councillor in 2004, the Conservative minority-control council scrapped the free bus pass on advice from council officers, who told us that it could not be sustained, but we soon realised what a gigantic mistake it had been. At the following local elections, Labour election literature branded me the “bus pass snatcher”. Needless to say, we lost the election, and I am certain that the issue was a significant factor in my losing Redditch in the 2005 general election. The Labour group reinstated concessionary fares in 2004, but the disaster that I have mentioned must not be repeated.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She makes a strong point. Does she acknowledge that the problems of the present concessionary fares scheme affect county towns such as Worcester particularly badly, and that if the Government are going to switch it from the districts to the counties, it is essential that they reallocate the grant and not simply the cost of the scheme?

[Karen Lumley]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall probably come to that point later.

I fully support the announcement in the Government’s comprehensive spending review to

“Protect the statutory entitlement for concessionary bus travel, ensuring that older people can maintain greater freedom and independence.”

However, I am worried that it does not go far enough. I believe that the Government are not effectively addressing the serious concerns voiced by district and county councillors about the reduction to local government resource grants of 28%, the transfer of grant funding administration and the 20% cuts to the bus service operators grant. Together, those will have a significant effect on the provision of concessionary travel.

Today, I wish to speak particularly about the implications that the transfer of grant funding from district councils to the county council, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), will have for two-tier authorities. I stress that the problem is not the principle of transferring the funding to county councils, but the process of reallocating financial responsibility. Under current plans, the national scheme, which is administered locally, is to be withdrawn from district councils and transferred to county councils from April next year. In the past, councils have often had to deal with substantial shortfalls in funding for the scheme, and the latest development appears to be a continuation of this struggle.

Funding and Schools Reform

Debate between Karen Lumley and Robin Walker

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. Education is vital not only to the future of our children and young people, but to the future of the UK as a whole. Our economy depends on nurturing the best and brightest talents, and we should ensure that each and every child, no matter their background or social situation, has access to the very best education that we can provide.

I should like to declare my interest in this debate. I am chairman of governors of Vaynor first school, which is one of the largest first schools in the country with 408 pupils. The Secretary of State may remember visiting Vaynor with me a couple of years ago. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from its head teacher. She wrote:

“I could kiss Michael Gove! He has cancelled Financial Management Standards in Schools.”

Although it would not be proper for me to echo both sentiments in that statement, I firmly support the Government’s move to cancel needless micromanagement. As chairman of governors, I fully understand the issues surrounding fairer funding for our schools. The Government’s long-term plans for a simpler funding system are welcome. There is a definite need to tailor funding for schools in each area, not base funding allocation on a complicated and arbitrary system that overlooks local needs.

There is also a large disparity between the funding allocated to similar schools in different areas of the country. It has not escaped my notice that the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition receives per pupil funding of £4,083; the constituency of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) receives per pupil funding of £4,265; and even higher is the guaranteed per pupil funding of £4,317 for the constituency of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Redditch, on the other hand, receives only £3,864. The schools of those right hon. Gentlemen who put forward today’s motion receive on average almost £300 more than schools in my Redditch constituency.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of the schools of Worcestershire. May I add one more statistic to her figures? There is a £760 per pupil gap in funding between pupils in Worcestershire and the neighbouring authority of Birmingham. Her constituency in Redditch and mine in Worcester include some of the most deprived wards in the country. Both were represented by Labour Members in this House for 13 years, and people in those communities were on a 13-year promise of fairer funding. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming this Government’s intention to review the funding formula? If Opposition Members turn their backs on funding reform, they will be turning their backs on some of the neediest communities in Worcestershire.

[Karen Lumley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I urge the Government to ensure that funding is fair and that schools across the country have equal access to the piggy bank. I also welcome the Government’s plans for the pupil premium and the £2.5 billion that has been found in these difficult economic times to support educational development of the most disadvantaged pupils. That shows a real commitment by this Government to reduce the attainment gap and ensure that each and every school pupil reaches their potential. However, we must ensure that the pupil premium goes to those who are most in need, and I urge the Government not to overlook the pockets of deprivation that exist in Redditch and Worcester, the constituency of my hon. Friend. Will the Government clarify how the pupil premium will reach those pockets of deprivation?

Finally, I should like to say a few words about standards in schools. I should like to see standards raised in Redditch over the course of this Parliament. I firmly believe that the Government should focus on school standards—not just in a few schools but in all our schools. We need to ensure that teachers are free from the increasing bureaucracy and incessant form filling so that they can concentrate on teaching our children.

When I meet teachers and head teachers, one of the first things that they mention is the endless amounts of paperwork that they have to deal with. We need to move away, and stay away, from the bureaucratic procedures imposed on our school system and make sure that it is replaced by teachers spending more time with pupils. I received another e-mail yesterday, from another head teacher in my constituency, who wrote:

“Just to say I applaud the Government for abolishing this bureaucratic burden on schools. It is good to finally have a Government that listens”.

On that note, I will finish my contribution. We in Redditch are trying hard to improve our schools and get the very best education for our children. I applaud the Government’s proposals and hope that all hon. Members will make their schools and our nation’s children their top priority.