King George Hospital

Debate between Mike Gapes and Simon Burns

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mike Gapes]

I suspect that that may be the case. A number of others were also on the payroll in one way or another—including many who were the lead GPs in the consortia that endorsed the proposals.

It is important to get the chronology right. Following the decision of the joint primary care trust meeting in December to endorse the proposals, all the councillors from all the parties in the London borough of Redbridge made a unanimous referral to the Secretary of State. The joint overview and scrutiny committee for all the boroughs in outer north-east London also made a referral to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then decided—the Minister will recall a previous debate in the main Chamber, in which we had an interesting exchange on the matter—to refer the case to a new independent reconfiguration panel investigation.

The IRP spent a lot of time talking to Members of Parliament and councillors, and it worked hard; I have no criticism of the consultation process. In its analysis, although it tended to group us all into one paragraph called, “Save King George Hospital” campaign, which covers many interviews and consultations, the community’s opposition was reflected. The view was expressed, if tucked away, that the local community was overwhelmingly against the proposals.

The IRP published its report internally, but not publicly, and put it on the desk of the Secretary of State on 22 July, and there it sat. Two or three weeks after that, the CQC decided to carry out a full, no-holds-barred look at Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust. Understandably, I guess, the Secretary of State decided to hold back until he had received the CQC report before he published the IRP report and gave his official response; Members of Parliament expected something like that to happen.

Then, interestingly, everything went quiet. We originally thought that we were going to get an announcement in September, but September came and went. Then we thought that we would get an announcement in early October, but that did not happen. Eventually, three hours after the CQC report was made public, the Secretary of State published his response.

There is a little bit of history here. As a local Member of Parliament—I know that other MPs feel the same—I was not appropriately informed about the matters. BBC London news on television at 6.30 pm on Wednesday evening ran a story saying that the Secretary of State was going to announce at 12 o’clock the following day the closure of A and E and maternity services at King George hospital. I raised a point of order in the Chamber that evening with Madam Deputy Speaker, who had no knowledge of the matter—there was no statement or announcement to come.

The following morning, telephone calls to the private and press offices of the Department of Health ascertained that, yes, the news was true: there was going to be an announcement. To be fair, I was phoned back eventually, at 11.15 am, and told that the announcement would be made at 1 pm, and that I would be told in advance of it. That is true: I received an e-mail at, I think, 12.46 pm. Attached was a letter from the Secretary of State with a link to the IRP report, but the report was not available on that link; the link did not work until 1.10 pm. Other people had a similar problem, by which time the announcement was already up and running. Therefore, we knew what the decision was—to endorse the report—but we did not know the content of the report. That is a matter of concern.

Nevertheless, the essence of the proposal is that Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust will be completely reorganised, because the IRP recommended going ahead with the downgrading of services at King George hospital, despite public opposition and deep concerns.

I have a question. The CQC report was published at 10 o’clock. Is the CQC report consistent with the IRP report and the Secretary of State’s decision? The Secretary of State, having read the CQC report, should have thought hard about whether to endorse the IRP report. The CQC report is absolutely damning about services at Queen’s hospital. It contains some criticisms of King George, principally because that hospital is in the same trust as Queen’s, with the same management, which the report is also strongly critical of. However, of the 73 recommendations in the CQC report, concerning maternity, A and E, children’s services, dealing with complaints from MPs, quality of care, cleanliness and all kinds of other issues, the vast majority relate to the new, five-year-old, private finance initiative-built Queen’s hospital in Romford. The report explicitly says on occasion that the recommendations do not apply to King George and that at King George, there is a different case. We have a series of absolutely damning recommendations relating to the larger hospital in the trust.

I do not wish to go through the report in great detail, as it is a long document. If people are looking for horror reading at Christmas, I recommend taking the report away and reading it. Apart from criticising poor management, it says that some staff, particularly in the maternity services at Queen’s, have very poor attitudes to the patients whom they are treating. It also confirms that attempts to cut the deficit at Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust over the years have led to reductions in the quality of care.

The IRP report also flags up concerns, saying that if the trust drove on with the deficit reduction programme and reduced the number of staff and beds, there could be an issue with quality. Damningly, the report makes it clear that although services at King George were reduced over the years, it has not led to efficiency savings. All it has done is reduce the quality of care in a hospital that serves my constituents and those of a number of other MPs. The cost of doing that has not led to improvements in efficiency; on the contrary, it has contributed to the ongoing deficit problems in the dysfunctional trust.

There we have it. The Secretary of State receives a report from the IRP recommending the endorsement of NHS London’s vision to downgrade services at King George hospital in Ilford. He then receives a report saying that there are two hospitals in the trust, covering 750,000 people in the community in the three boroughs, one of which is doing badly and there are criticisms of the other. He therefore endorses the recommendations to cut the services at the hospital that is doing better, on the aspiration, but with no evidence, that it will lead to a miraculous Stakhanovite improvement in the services at the bigger, supposedly better and more expensive hospital in the long term. You really could not make it up.

The Secretary of State could have delayed his decision on the IRP report. He could have said, “I am concerned about the CQC report and the damning indictment of what is going on at Queen’s hospital. I have waited three months with the report sitting on my desk, and I will wait another year to see whether I am satisfied that the improvements at Queen’s hospital are happening and have happened, that the quality of services provided is sufficient and that there has been an improvement in primary care services, which is also called for in the IRP report.” He could have waited, or he could have said, “I have made an announcement. I am minded to support the recommendations unless there is a significant improvement at Queen’s hospital and other services.”

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope this reassures him. As he will know from the decision, nothing to do with the IRP proposals will come into effect until the problems highlighted in the CQC report have been remedied, and the time scale for that in many ways fits in with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mike Gapes]

I am sorry, but that is not good enough. The Minister gives the impression that the Secretary of State has somehow not “fully supported”—to use his own words—the recommendations. The letter that I have from Heather Mullin of the Health for north east London programme states that the Secretary of State fully supports the recommendations of the IRP.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fallacious point. I have never said that at all. It is quite clear from the letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to him and to other hon. Members that he does. The point that I was making in my intervention is that he said that the IRP proposals should not come into effect until the problems have been sorted out at the two hospitals. I am saying that it has already been accepted that those improvements have to be made prior to the IRP proposals coming into effect, which is what I understood that the hon. Gentleman was saying should happen.

[Mike Gapes]

I am saying something different; I am saying that the Secretary of State could have delayed his decision or that he could have said that he was minded to—the words that I used—support the proposals, but would not make a final decision until he was satisfied.

I spoke to people within the Health for north east London programme last week. I asked them what the timetable for the implementation of the proposals was, and they could not tell me. I asked them whether babies will be born at King George hospital, Ilford, in five years’ time, and I was told, “Almost certainly not.” I therefore asked whether babies would be born there in two years’ time, and I was told, “They may be. We have not yet worked out the detail of these proposals. There is still a lot of work to do.”

[Mr Burns]

There is no secret about this. The improvements to care must first be achieved at the hospitals before the IRP proposals are enacted. It is anticipated—one can never be 100% accurate—that the time scale will probably be about two years.

[Mike Gapes]

I give way to my right hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Scott]

If it is helpful, I have also received a letter from Heather Mullin stating exactly what the Minister has said, which is that two years is the minimum time scale for things to be looked at.

[Mr Burns]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

I am happy to keep giving way.

[Mr Burns]

To respond to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), I will repeat what I said before, which is that it is of paramount importance that the recommendations and demands of CQC are met before anything happens with the IRP recommendations, because patient safety is paramount. As far as can be assessed, it will probably be two years to get patient safety to the required levels and to address all the problems highlighted in the CQC report. Whatever the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Lady may have heard from other people, we estimate that the time scale will probably be about two years, because the CQC’s requirements are paramount.

[Mike Gapes]

I would like to move on to what the CQC actually said, because it has made several criticisms and expressed deep concern. It will prove difficult for the management of the trust and the present configuration of Queen’s hospital to meet the required improvements within a two-year timetable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and I have visited the hospital, and there are, for example, bottlenecks where people are on trolleys around the corner where they cannot be seen, which is pointed out in the report. There are design faults, and it is a bit like Eros at Piccadilly circus with trolleys suddenly coming from both directions. This newly designed hospital has a level of chaos. Whoever was responsible for signing off the design must have decided that it was an airport rather than a hospital, because the design has big issues—

[Mr Burns]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

Before the Minister intervenes, I am criticising the previous Government, the private finance initiative and the people in the consultancies and the private sector who run the PFI and make a huge amount of money from it, for designing a hospital that does not work well. The reports state that. They criticise the bad signage, the design and the way that wards are structured. Queen’s hospital has, for example, areas where children cannot be seen and areas where people wait for more than an hour before being attended to by a nurse or doctor. There is a whole litany of things that relate partly to design, partly to management, partly to staff shortages and partly to other issues at the hospital.

I do not believe that Queen’s hospital can be turned around in the suggested time scale, and that raises wider questions. The CQC wrote to me after I asked for an update following the publication of its report, and I received it yesterday. The update confirms the reasons why it had to intervene, which included the poor performance of the trust in the past and the fact that long-term problems prevented offering care that consistently meets CQC’s essential standards. To be fair, the CQC refers to both hospitals. It continues by saying that they have taken action to mitigate the risk of immediate harm in the short term, which includes reducing births at both Queen’s hospital and King George hospital and transferring caesareans out of the area. When they will be transferred back is an interesting question, which we can perhaps come to later. The update also states that the CQC met many staff and patients and that their concerns were made known, but the nub of the issue is that if improvements are not forthcoming, the CQC is prepared to restrict access to or close services that appear to be basically unsustainable. It then states that the CQC is not responsible for service reconfiguration.

The CQC, therefore, is not yet convinced that the 74 improvements that it has requested will be met. The final paragraph in the letter to me states that the CQC has set out 16 key recommendations that must be fulfilled by the trust and that it will monitor their implementation, but it admits that the trust needs help from organisations in the local health economy such as NHS London and commissioners and that the necessary significant changes are likely to challenge both clinical flows and trust finances.

There it is. We have problems with capacity and money, and we have a decision from the IRP and the Secretary of State to downgrade King George hospital, but serious concerns remain about Queen’s hospital. Are we confident that within two years those problems will have been addressed sufficiently well, at a time when there are financial problems; that Queen’s hospital will suddenly have been turned around, so that it is such a fantastic place that my constituents and the constituents of my neighbouring MPs—my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham—will feel happy to go into it to give birth to their children? I already have constituents expressing concerns because of the media reports and other things that are going on.

The CQC report points out that in the past there were more than 2,000 births a year in the King George hospital; at one time, there were 2,500 births a year. However, those numbers were deliberately run down by the trust to around 1,300 births a year. Then, a few months ago, the trust began to push the numbers up again, because Queen’s hospital could not cope. Within two years of now, the capacity for births at King George hospital—a capacity of around 2,000 births a year—will go. We are told that some of that capacity will go to a midwife-led birthing unit on the Barking hospital site, where there are currently about 10 births a week, or about 500 births a year. I am told that that figure is the maximum for that unit, although I do not know whether that is accurate. There is no proposal to have a similar unit on the King George site. That idea was floated in the consultation, but it was ruled out.

We have had a maternity hospital in Ilford since 1926; children have been born in that hospital since 1926. But from 2013 there will be no children born in that hospital, even though we have a young population. People in Ilford will be forced to go to the Queen’s hospital, where there is capacity for 9,000 or 10,000 births a year. It will be one of the largest maternity units in the country and it has been described as a “baby factory” in one of the documents that I have referred to this morning. Alternatively, they can go to Newham hospital or Whipps Cross hospital. Apparently, the facilities for babies to be born at Newham hospital or Whipps Cross hospital will be increased, although the cost of doing that is undefined. That will happen, while the perfectly good maternity service that exists in Ilford at King George hospital is being run down. My constituents will have to travel to Havering or to Whipps Cross. It is not easy to get to Whipps Cross from Ilford lane; the route is complicated and there are sometimes lots of traffic problems. There will be concerns about that.

Interestingly, Havering has the oldest population of any London borough; that is pointed out in the IRP report. The boroughs with the youngest populations in London are Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge. So we have this huge increase in young people in north-east London, but their hospital will not be in the communities where they live. I could understand it if we had had a hospital at Queen’s hospital that provided long-term care for people suffering from long-term illnesses, mental health problems and so on, and if we had our maternity hospital in the area where most of the births were taking place. But oh no—the IRP, Health for north east London and the Government do it the other way round. We pointed that out in the consultation and the local MPs and councillors kept making these points, but we have been ignored.

Mr Brady, I am conscious of the time and that other Members wish to speak, so I simply want to get back to the CQC. I have been told that the CQC will review in March 2012 whether or not the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust is delivering improvements. The CQC says:

“If we do not see improvements, we are prepared to take further action to restrict and ultimately close services that do not deliver care that meets our essential standards of safety and quality, and that present risks to people using services.”

That review is due to take place in March 2012, which is not very far away. It is not two years away; it is just a few months away.

I hope that the quality of care at Queen’s hospital improves sufficiently; I hope that services at King George hospital are not run down by surreptitious salami-slicing cuts in preparation for the implementation of Health for north east London’s plans, as they have been for several years now; and I hope that quality of patient care and treatment for my constituents is put ahead of the bean-counting desire to reduce the deficit at the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust.

However, I am not confident that those things will happen. I am extremely angry at the betrayal of my constituents by the bureaucracy in Health for north east London; by the Minister, who said before the general election last year that there would be no top-down reorganisation; and by others, who said that they would keep district general hospitals open and that those hospitals should not close. The Prime Minister said that in 2007. In 2009, he promised “a bare-knuckle fight”. That was in the context of Chase Farm hospital, but the principles involved are the same. I feel that we have been betrayed and that our services are going to be reduced, and I fear the consequences of that for my constituents.

Health Services (North-east London)

Debate between Mike Gapes and Simon Burns

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to begin the Adjournment debate so early in the day. I rushed back to get here in time, and I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) is here, because the future of the NHS in outer north-east London is vital to both of us as constituency MPs, and to residents not only of the London borough of Redbridge, but residents of Barking and Dagenham, who all use the facilities at King George hospital, Ilford, which is in my constituency.

Those who follow Hansard closely may have a feeling that this is a case of déjà vu yet again. I introduced a debate in Westminster Hall in December 2006 on the future of King George hospital and a debate in the Chamber in November 2009 on the same subject, and I am here again today. Why is that? We had a consultation process—the misnamed Fit for the Future proposals—launched in 2006, with supposed options that would have led to the scrapping of the accident and emergency department and all elective work at King George hospital. Then we had an independent review by Professor George Alberti that said that the proposals would be clinically unsound. The people behind the proposals, including Heather O’Meara, the then chief executive of the Redbridge primary care trust, were forced to go back to the drawing board, and we thought that we had seen those proposals off. But in 2008-09, they came back. In autumn 2009, we discovered that the new proposals would lead to the loss not—this time—of all the elective work, but of the accident and emergency department, all children’s surgery and all births at King George hospital.

The consultation on the original proposals was launched at a board meeting of the outer London primary care trusts held at Upton Park football ground—as a West Ham United season ticket holder, I feel very uncomfortable about this—in November 2009. Many glossy documents were published, and the whole exercise cost £800,000. One of those documents was called “Health for North-East London: Delivering high quality hospital health service for the people of north-east London”. It said that it was a consultation document launched in November 2009 until—or so we were originally told—15 March 2010. That was subsequently extended to 22 March.

The document gave people all kinds of boxes to tick and options for the future. However, in the summary, on page 39 it had a list of improvements or reductions in services, with only two red crosses, which meant a reduction in services. One was

“A & E, acute inpatient care for adults and children, complex planned surgery.”

There will be a reduction in services because it is proposed to get rid of the services at King George hospital in the London borough of Redbridge. The other was maternity and birthing services. It was proposed that women could have their antenatal care in Ilford and their postnatal care in Ilford, but they could not actually give birth there.

I had some doubts about the whole consultation exercise, including the questions being asked and the selection of the subjects, and I refer hon. Members to the debate that I introduced in November 2009 for the details.

We went through the consultation exercise—I still believe, as I said at the time, that it was as free and fair as a rigged Afghan election—and people sent back their responses. I worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and my friend, the hon. Member for Ilford North, on a cross-party basis, and we went to see the then Health Minister, Mike O’Brien. He was an excellent Minister and is a sad loss to this House. He agreed to come and visit King George hospital with us at the end of the consultation. He said that he understood the deep concern and recognised that tens of thousands of people had signed petitions against these proposals because they had serious concerns about the implications for the future. He agreed to refer the matter to the independent reconfiguration panel of the NHS. Over the next few weeks, the panel looked into the matter, but decided that it was not appropriate for it to intervene. The panel said that the consultation conclusions should be reported and that the process should continue.

Fair enough, but in July the results of the consultation were revealed to us at a meeting, again at the West Ham United football ground. There were a number of different documents, one of which was a great big analysis by Ipsos MORI of all the boxes that had been ticked, all the replies that had been received and all the different statements that had been sent in by clinicians, individuals, local authorities, LINks—local involvement networks—and various other organisations. In summary, despite the rigged nature of the consultation and the fact that those responsible did not take into account the petitions that I and others had organised—they simply said that petitions had been received, but did not add the figures into the equation—the proposals for maternity and accident and emergency were rejected by the public, by a two-to-one majority among all the respondents in all the boroughs concerned. Indeed, if we add the petitions, the figure is 90% against the proposals.

I went along to the meeting, I sat there, and I had my say, eventually. We were told that no decisions would be taken at that meeting, that people would go away over the summer and work up proposals, and that there would be further consultation with “stakeholders”—obviously we are not talking about vegetarians, but I do not quite know about the term “stakeholders”.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

It is a new Labour term.

[Mike Gapes]

It may be a new Labour term, but it is still being used by the current Government, so if the Minister can do something to stop that, I would be grateful.

There was a report back to “stakeholders” in September. I shall come to that in a moment, but let me first give a flavour of the responses that were received as a result of the whole exercise. For instance, the responses from the local authorities have been listed. The London borough of Redbridge sent in a clear response, which was a resolution adopted unanimously by the council that said:

“having taken account of the need to provide a wide range of health services in Redbridge which are able to meet the needs of our growing and diverse population, we express our strong opposition to the Health for North East London ONEL proposals to downgrade services at King George Hospital which would include (a) closure of the Accident and Emergency department (b) the ending of critical care support and acute surgical and medical treatment; (c) the ending of Children’s surgery and (d) the ending of maternity delivery in the Borough”.

That was the unanimous Redbridge position, supported by all parties and councillors among the 63 members of Redbridge council.

Barking and Dagenham council took a similar position, writing in its covering letter that it was “concerned about the proposals”. In particular, it was concerned that Queen’s hospital in Romford, which is the larger of the two hospitals in the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust, would not be able to cope with the increased pressures, including the increased pressures on A and E, and maternity services. Interestingly, Waltham Forest council, which, in a previous incarnation in 2006, had come out in favour of the Fit for the Future proposals, said in 2010 that it would not comment on the A and E position. However, the council was critical that concerns about mental health had been neglected, saying that alternative services were needed. Waltham Forest council also said that Health for North East London needed to

“spell out what will be involved in reducing the number of A & Es from six to five especially in terms of impact on the remaining A & E departments”,

adding that the proposals were not clear. Newham council said that it was not convinced by the proposals either:

“We also note the significant changes to service provision at King George’s hospital. It will be necessary to closely monitor any resulting impact on our local Newham Hospital… Our expectation is that any increase in activity will be matched by appropriate resource levels.”

That was a conditional position. Tower Hamlets did not want to comment on the proposal either. Among the borough councils—these are representative bodies, the people who represent the community—there was either a clear opposition or at least indifference or ambivalence.

What about other organisations? I have already mentioned the Newham trust. It said something very important in its documents:

“experience with the Gateway Surgical centre supports the model of locating elective care in a separate building but on the same site as acute provision, allowing easier access for staff.”

The whole thrust of the proposals is to separate the two out, whereby the elective and the acute are in different places, yet this has been questioned even by one of the hospitals that could benefit by receiving the transferred patients.

The position adopted by other organisations is also significant. The Ipsos MORI documents make it clear that very strong views were expressed. The essence of my debate is captured by an important sentence, which states:

“The views opposing the reduction… from six to five hospitals providing accident and emergency, critical care and maternity services…came from organisations representing the public (elected local authorities and patient representative groups such as LINks)”.

It continues:

“It should also be noted that some opposition was also expressed from representative groups associated with NHS staff, notably some Local Medical Committees.”

Who, then, is in favour of these proposals? Not a lot of people, it seems. Within the local community in Redbridge, it is very hard to find anybody in favour of the proposals. Perhaps some people in other boroughs might be found, but it is certainly true that in Redbridge it is very hard to find anybody of any authority or any representative political role who is prepared to speak out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) on securing this debate. I know from previous debates he has secured on this subject how strongly he feels about it—and rightly so—as a constituency Member of Parliament. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on his contribution. He has worked for a long time with the hon. Member for Ilford South in representing the interests of their constituents. I know that the quality of service provided by the local NHS is very important to both hon. Members and their constituents, and I assure them that I share their commitment to achieving the best possible health care for the people of north-east London. I also praise the hard work and dedication shown by NHS staff in north-east London. Their jobs are not always easy, but they always strive to provide the best possible care for patients.

Today, the NHS has some of the best people and facilities in the world, but when it comes to what is really important—outcomes for patients—we lag behind many other countries. The Government’s ambition is clear: for health outcomes in this country to be among the best in the world. Just over three months ago, we published the White Paper “Liberating the NHS”, showing how we will achieve the real gains. We will liberate clinicians from top-down targets and endless micro-management by politicians and civil servants. It is an ambitious plan for reform focused on three key aims: the first is to put patients first. Patients should feel that no decision is made about them without them. Secondly, we want to focus on outcomes, not inputs or processes, and to build a culture of evidence and evaluation, to ensure that health care uses innovation and evidence to provide quality care and is accountable for improving outcomes. Thirdly, to deliver the best care, we must empower NHS staff, whose responsibility it is to give that care. Decision making must take place close to patients, so that clinical decision making can be better combined with the use of resources. GPs already influence the commissioning of decisions by the way in which they manage and refer patients, and by deciding which medicines to prescribe and which treatments. They decide what is best for their patients based on the options available and on their clinical judgment of what would be best for them.

We are asking GPs to take the next natural step by giving the responsibility for designing, commissioning and paying for local services to groups of GP practices. This will ensure that decisions are clinically led, involving all other health care professionals, hospital consultants, nurses and social care workers in order to design services that put patients first and are focused on improving clinical outcomes.

GP commissioning also opens up the potential for working closely with local authorities to commission services jointly—even for the pooling of budgets to tackle local priorities jointly. For example, by working closely with local authority and social care providers, far more can be done to help older people or those with a disability to live independently, reducing their reliance on the NHS by avoiding things such as hospital admissions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) recently opened the Macmillan information and support centre at Whipps Cross hospital in north-east London. The centre is available free to anyone affected by cancer and offers confidential advice and support. Such partnerships between the NHS and the third sector take exactly the kind of innovative and exciting approach to health care that we are actively encouraging.

Before addressing the specific concerns of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, I should set out the wider context of local health care reform. Thanks to the NHS, most of us will enjoy better health and longer lives than our parents and our grandparents. That is a tremendous achievement, as I am sure both hon. Members recognise, but, as the NHS effects great change on the health of this country, so the changing nature of the population must transform the NHS.

An ageing population is just one of the many challenges to which the NHS must adapt over time. Every day, new medicines and treatments are developed to meet our changing lifestyles and expectations. We know that change can sometimes be unsettling, but we also understand that the NHS needs to evolve—to move with the times. All we ask is for the NHS to make collective, informed and local decisions that improve outcomes for patients.

On 15 December a joint committee of primary care trusts will make some important decisions about the future of King George hospital and about health services in north-east London more generally. I am confident that those decisions will be made by those best qualified to make them, based on a solid foundation of clinical evidence and local engagement.

[Mike Gapes]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene at this point.

[Mike Gapes]

How are the views of elected local authorities, of elected Members of Parliament and of the community, as expressed even in that dubious consultation exercise, to be taken fully into consideration against an NHS management bureaucracy who seem determined to carry on regardless? Is 15 December the date of the final decision? Is there no other way in which we the public can have our say?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I fully understand how strongly he feels about the issue—what he recognises, from his constituents’ point of view, as a potential problem—and how important it is to get the matter right. I shall not duck the question, but will the hon. Gentleman bear with me a little so that I can put it in context? I shall then respond to his intervention and answer his specific question about whether 15 December is the end of the road, or whether any other avenues might be open to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North.

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will describe how we reached this point. Back in February 2009, as he mentioned, the NHS in north-east London began to think about how it could better use its resources to provide safe, modern health care. The NHS in north-east London as a whole faces considerable challenges. Health outcomes and key health indicators are poor: people in the area have lower than average life expectancy and higher rates of infant death. The NHS recognised that it needed to improve services to meet those challenges head-on. For example, it found that long-term conditions could be managed better: instead of being admitted unnecessarily to hospital, patients could be treated in the community, closer to their homes.

One of the solutions suggested was to turn two of the existing hospital sites—the Royal London and Queen’s—into major acute hospitals and for them to become centres of excellence. Doctors can achieve that level of quality only if they see high numbers of complex cases, and patients can receive the best care only when surrounded by expert clinicians. To reach that critical mass of doctors and patients, specialist services would be consolidated into the two major acute hospitals, not spread thinly across each hospital in the region. The Royal London and Queen’s would be supported by three local hospitals, all with accident and emergency departments. The final site—King George hospital, which has been the main focus of this debate—would also play a vital role, taking a lead in providing primary, community and urgent care.

King George hospital would receive enhanced children’s services. An urgent care centre at the hospital would operate around the clock, the task being to manage as many patients as possible outside A and E services. Access and continuity of care for minor injuries and illnesses would be significantly improved. I know that there has been concern about rumours that the local NHS is planning to close King George hospital. I can categorically reassure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that that rumour is not true. Among the substantial number of services proposed to stay or to be moved to King George hospital was a recommendation that the hospital become a centre of excellence for planned surgery.

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust has proposed the transfer of all breast surgery from Queen’s to King George. That will mean that some women who currently have treatment at King George but then have to be transferred to Queen’s for surgery will have the whole procedure carried out under one roof, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will agree is an infinitely preferable and superior sequence of treatment to the present one. Those women will not have to go through the trauma and inconvenience of having to be moved to another hospital site for their surgery. In addition, local clinicians have identified a further 20,000 procedures a year that they believe would benefit from being provided solely at King George hospital.

Of the proposals made in north-east London, I know the hon. Member for Ilford South is most concerned about the potential loss of maternity and A and E services from King George hospital. I hope to be able to reassure him that, whatever the outcome of the meeting in December, nationally this Government remain committed to maternity and A and E services. When somebody walks through the doors of an A and E department, an urgent care centre or a walk-in centre, what sorts of service should they expect? To which facility should they go in the first place for the most appropriate care for the condition from which they are suffering? Part of the anger that we often see when the local NHS suggests replacing A and E with other, more appropriate services is due to a certain degree of confusion about what those services provide. The Government are committed to clarifying that, and work is already under way to standardise which services can be expected in various facilities. As well as improving A and E services, we want to improve urgent care radically. We are committed to providing universal access to high-quality urgent care 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Whatever the need, place or time, patients should be able to find the care they need. That is what part of our reforms in A and E will achieve.

The Government are also determined to drive forward improvements in maternity and newborn services so that women and their partners have access to local services and so that children have the best start in life. The safety of mother and baby is paramount. It is fundamental to safe, high-quality maternity care that a full range of services must be available to all women, whatever their medical and social circumstances. Services must be as near to home as possible, depending on the complexity of needs, with facilities and expertise available to provide optimum care.

[Mike Gapes]

I know that the Government are committed to improving the quality of care, as the previous Government were, but I have a large number of young families in my constituency and they will be forced to go several miles for the births of their children at Queen’s hospital rather than going to a hospital in the community where they live, as people in Ilford have done for 80-odd years. Is there a national policy that births can be allowed only at sites with a coterminous accident and emergency department, or could the proposals be reconsidered? One of the arguments in the relevant documents is that maternity services have to be moved because the A and E is being moved. Is that national policy?

[Mr Burns]

It is not national policy that if there is an A and E department there automatically has to be a maternity facility by its side. If one strips out the whole area of safety and quality of care, which is vital, one realises that the guiding rule is that maternity services are provided where they are relevant to the local community’s needs. It is about having the best siting relevant to the community’s needs. Clearly, however, there cannot, for a variety of reasons, be a maternity ward in every hospital in the country. Where they are sited will be determined by need and by the wishes of local communities. Once the reforms are in place, it will also be up to commissioners to decide where to site maternity units.

[Mike Gapes]

The Minister has heard me quote the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which takes the strong view that there should be maternity facilities and births at both the Queen’s and King George hospitals. I feel very strongly about this. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the people in NHS London, who are driving the change, and the people who deal with obstetrics and gynaecology—the experts—about what is necessary. Leaving aside the democratic arguments, the views of the people in the specialist royal college have not been taken into account.

[Mr Burns]

As with any proposals for reconfiguration anywhere, a range of views will be fed in, including those of the relevant royal colleges, GPs, clinicians, members of the public and other interested parties, and will be considered as part of the consultation process before a decision is made. I am going to come to the whole issue of consultations, on which the hon. Gentleman rightly has strong views, because I want to clarify the situation and, as I said earlier, I want to give him some answers about the options that might be open to him after 15 December.

In pursuit of true local backing for the proposals in the hon. Gentleman’s area, the local NHS has already started a debate about them. To date, it has talked through the issues with GPs, councillors, medical committees, national bodies and local patient representatives. I was going to say that perhaps he will recognise this from his own experience, as I am assured that the NHS has made every effort to keep him informed and to listen to his concerns. However, having listened to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said, it would seem that that is partly the case and there may have been certain slip-ups: for example, posting a letter the day after a meeting was held. I cannot confirm or deny that because I am not party to the information, but my hon. Friend has put it on the record, and if it did indeed happen that is somewhat unfortunate.

The hon. Member for Ilford South submitted a petition on behalf of his constituents, and the local NHS has confirmed that that will be taken into account. However, it asks different questions from those in the official consultation, which slightly skews the point that he made about it. I understand that one of the questions was: “Do you support the closing of King George hospital?” I suspect that in the case of the vast majority of people signing it, the answer would be no, they do not support it. The trouble is that there is not, never has been and will not be a proposal to close the hospital. I hope that he therefore understands that the question is not relevant to the consultation on the reconfiguration of services.

[Mike Gapes]

I do not know what advice the Minister has had from his officials. I do not want to get into a long textual discussion, but he should get the full wording of the petition that I submitted. I have to admit that there were several petitions from different organisations and individuals, but mine referred specifically to A and E, maternity and children’s services. It may have been headed “Save King George hospital”, “I support Mike Gapes’s campaign”, or whatever, but the wording specifically referred to those issues.

[Mr Burns]

I agree that we do not need to get into to-ing and fro-ing about what exactly was written. My point was that some of the questions—I am not saying all of them—on some of the petitions were not directly relevant to what was being consulted on. Having said that, it has been recognised that they will be considered as part of the consultation process.

[Mr Burns]

I have no doubt that they will, as part of the ongoing consultation and evaluation of responses to the consultation process.

Before 15 December, the London strategic health authority will assess north-east London’s readiness against the four tests that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced in May this year to ensure more local engagement in the proposed reconfigurations of services throughout the country. In certain previous consultations, there was a long-held view that although lip service was paid to local people and medical practitioners—clinicians and GPs—the views of the local community did not matter because, in effect, a decision had been taken at the launch and things would end up in exactly the same state at the end of the process.

To give greater credence and importance to local views, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his changes to the criteria that had to be conformed with for reconfigurations to take place, to empower people to take part in the discussions and to ensure that their views would be fully considered before decisions were taken. To achieve that, he has said that reconfigurations and consultation processes that are already in progress will have to be checked against the revised and strengthened criteria to ensure that they have been carried out under the new format. I can assure the hon. Member for Ilford South that that will happen prior to the meeting on 15 December.

[Mike Gapes]

Will the Minister clarify who will do that? Will it be the person in the London NHS who is behind the proposals, or will it be somebody independent of the proposals?

[Mr Burns]

It will be done by the national health service in London. People could be tempted to shout “Foul” if they do not agree with the decision, but that does not mean to say that it necessarily is a foul. In the case of a straightforward matter such as checking whether the consultation process has taken place under the new guidelines, we have to accept the professionalism of the people carrying out the job, and trust that they will do it properly. If it emerged that the guidelines had not been abided by in any way—I hasten to add that I make this point illustratively, and I am not saying that it will—the hon. Gentleman would be extremely happy. If it were found that they had been abided by, he would need to have an open mind, and not automatically say that things had not been done properly.

While the discussion in north-east London continues, the clinical working groups have already made changes to their previous recommendations. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give him some examples. From talking to parents it was obvious that many were anxious about the prospect of travelling long distances to get treatment for their children. Clinicians needed to find a way to reduce the chance of that happening, and now it is proposed that only children needing specialist or high-dependency care will be transported to specialist centres. That means that more children will be treated locally than was originally anticipated, but they will still have access to specialist care when they need it.

Women told the NHS that they wanted more midwife-led care. As a direct result, a study has been commissioned, working with local mothers and mothers-to-be, to find out what choice really means to them. Clinicians are working up plans for midwifery-led units across the region as we speak.

Some residents expressed concern about having no A and E at King George hospital. Doctors are still convinced that clinically, any small increases in travel time will be more than compensated for by having better, safer, faster care, but they have recommended changes to the original proposals for urgent care at the hospital. Now, as well as the 24/7 urgent care centre originally proposed, a 24/7 short stay assessment unit is being recommended. It would be staffed by a team of skilled clinicians with expertise in assessment and treatment as well as in emergency medicine. The service would offer facilities for longer periods of observation, assessment and treatment, including access to a range of tests not currently available in primary care and specialist advice from hospital clinicians. Staff would work closely with community health and social care services, including mental health services, so that as many patients as possible could be cared for in the community without recourse to a hospital admission.

The NHS in north-east London is also working closely with Transport for London to ensure a good bus service between Queen’s hospital and King George hospital. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is vital to help many of his constituents who may need to use such a service.

I believe that discussions with the local community have already made a positive impact. The local NHS is now truly listening to GPs and consequently changing its plans. That reflects the improvements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced to engage local communities with reconfigurations.

[Mike Gapes]

Will the Minister address my point about consulting GPs? How will their views be taken into consideration?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. My understanding is that the “health for north east London” programme team is prioritising engagement with GP practices whose patients would be most affected by the reconfiguration proposals, and GPs who are currently likely to be leaders in the commissioning consortiums that will flow from the NHS reforms.

[Mike Gapes]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I will give way for the last time.

[Mike Gapes]

We are considering an important point. The letter from the Minister, the May proposals and the Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday place great emphasis on GPs’ views and wishes. Yet what we were told on Friday has made me very worried. Which GPs are we talking about—the lead person in a commissioning consortium, single-handed practitioners joining together and outvoting a group of GPs in a health centre, or what? There is no provision for a ballot. What is the process? People can get whatever result they want if they skew the process. My fear is that the process will be discredited unless it is seen to have democratic legitimacy. I suspect that we will have a big problem, because the views of certain GPs will be taken into account and those of others will not.

[Mr Burns]

I will confirm what I said before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The consultation will prioritise engagement with GP practices whose patients would be most affected by the reconfiguration. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be a ballot of GPs, I do not agree. There should be engagement, discussion and GPs contributing to any reconfiguration proposals by meeting people who undertake the consultation process to make known their views and their preferences—the pros and cons that they envisage—but I do not think that a ballot is either feasible or necessary. To take his idea to its logical conclusion, why restrict a ballot to GPs? Why not have a ballot of social workers or community nurses? That sort of engagement is unnecessary when there are other perfectly satisfactory forms of engaging.

If the hon. Gentleman supported what was happening, he would be happy with the procedures.

[Mike Gapes]

No.

[Mr Burns]

I think that he would. Let me point out gently and tactfully that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressly introduced criteria for the engagement of GPs, clinicians and other interested parties because of their concern that they did not have enough ownership of consultation processes. I have to say that until 6 May, for 13 years, we were not the Government—and that it was we who looked at the position afresh and recognised the concerns throughout the country about reconfigurations. By introducing his criteria, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the concerns of local communities that their views were not being properly considered. This Government, in a very short time—within two and a half weeks, I think—took decisive action to give greater power and ownership to those groups to contribute to consultation processes.

On local scrutiny, which featured significantly in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I fully recognise that there are considerable public concerns about the proposals for north-east London. In the light of those, the Redbridge overview and scrutiny committee referred the case to the previous Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), in January 2010. He asked the independent reconfiguration panel for advice. In its response, the panel concluded that a full review was unnecessary. In July 2010 my right hon. Friend the current Health Secretary accepted the panel’s recommendation that due process by way of public consultation and formal engagement should be allowed to continue—a process that has not yet come to an end, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

However, as I said, we are determined that local voices will be properly heard, and we expect any concerns to be taken extremely seriously. I shall lay out again for the hon. Gentleman the critical tests that have been applied in the consultation process in the past two or three months, and that will be applied until the consultation’s conclusion. First, the proposals should have the support of GP commissioners; secondly, arrangements for public-patient engagement, including local authorities, should be further strengthened; thirdly, there should be greater clarity about clinical evidence underpinning any proposals; and fourthly, any proposals should take into account the need to develop and support patient choice.

Given the complexity and scale of the challenge in London, the Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman knows, called a halt to existing clinical strategies and asked the NHS to look at its plans afresh. That means that north-east London now has an opportunity—it has had one for some time—to have a frank and open discussion with GPs, clinicians, councils and patients on how their health services can change for the better. I believe that if that process is managed well, any changes made will lead to better health care for people across north-east London, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

As was said in the debate, the question of whether those four criteria are fully met will be considered prior to the meeting on 15 December. Providing it is seen that those criteria have been met, the meeting will go ahead, and a decision will be taken. What happens if the decision is not popular with a number of people? I suspect, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that it will not be. Unless I misheard him, he said that the overview and scrutiny committee would have no opportunity to look at the proposal, reach a decision on it and write to the Health Secretary if necessary. I am not quite sure why he said that.

[Mike Gapes]

My understanding of what we were told at the meeting on Friday is that the decision on 15 December will be the final decision, subject only to the Secretary of State, and that there was no intermediate process. If that is inaccurate, I would be delighted, but that was my impression from what we were told on Friday. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) will confirm that.

[Mr Burns]

I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman was told on Friday, and I hope that I will be able to delight him. My understanding is that after the meeting on 15 December, the OSC can look at the decision that has been made. If it is not convinced that it is the right decision, it can contact the Secretary of State. That is a step forward from what the hon. Gentleman was told at his meeting on Friday. We cannot anticipate the decision to be taken on 15 December, because that would be irresponsible, but I have confirmed that he will have some further opportunity—if warranted by the OSC’s decision, because we cannot prejudge that either—to have the decision revisited.

As I have said, we must not prejudge the outcome of the meeting of the joint PCTs on 15 December, when local NHS leaders will gather to make a decision that will dictate the future of health services in north-east London. I believe—even if I do not altogether carry the hon. Gentleman with me—that that decision will, rightly, be made locally. I understand that these issues arouse strong feelings: they involve difficult decisions about how resources should be used to achieve the best care for patients, which must always be the priority for, and guiding force behind, any reconfiguration or provision of health care.

Similarly, the NHS must continue to develop its plans for the future, and it must do so by giving local people and GPs a far greater say. Obviously, we will have to wait to hear the judgment on how the consultation has been carried out in relation to the four criteria laid down by the Secretary of State, but we need to create an NHS run by empowered professionals free of the shackles of central Government. The NHS has received massive investment, but it is drowning in bureaucracy. We will cut the red tape and sweep it away, letting NHS professionals organise themselves locally. It is a measure of the importance that we afford the NHS and the future health of this nation that its budget will be protected, as was confirmed in the announcement of the comprehensive spending review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday.

The hon. Gentleman must await the decision on 15 December. I am convinced that what will be done throughout the health service, especially in the case of difficult reconfigurations, will have as its guiding priority the desire to get the highest-quality health care for all our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.