Skip to main content

Cancer Patients: West Midlands

Volume 492: debated on Monday 25 January 1988

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

2.47 p.m.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the provision for the treatment of cancer patients in the West Midland region, and at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, in particular, is adequate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security
(Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, the provision of services for the treatment of cancer patients is a matter for regional and district health authorities. I understand that, in recognition of the increasing demand on services, the West Midlands Regional Health Authority is carrying out a major review of the region's cancer services, to ensure that the facilities for the treatment of cancer patients are being used as effectively as possible.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of anxiety in the West Midlands among consultants and patients about the cutbacks in provision'? The Queen Elizabeth Hospital this year has suffered a cutback in beds from 68 to 41 despite the fact that is has improved productivity by 14 per cent.

My Lords, I checked with the district health authority this morning and my figures are somewhat different from those of the noble Countess. I understand that 20 radiotherapy and oncology beds out of a total of 68 available beds at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital were temporarily closed in September. The bed closures were urgent temporary closures and health authorities are not obliged to consult over closures of this kind. However, I confirm that central Birmingham will be receiving £578,000 from the extra £65 million which was announced for distribution to the English health authorities in December. It will be for that district health authority to allocate the money where it feels it will be best used.

My Lords, will the Minister comment on the decision to slash urgently needed beds at another regional cancer speciality hospital—namely, St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London— where a 20-bedded ward is due to close this very day because of a shortage of funds? Is it really good enough to say that it is a matter for the health authority when in fact the health authority is deprived of the resources? The Government know they already have those resources and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State refuse to make them available for cases of urgent need like the treatment of cancer.

My Lords, if the hospital which the noble Lord mentioned was in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority area, I would comment. However, since it is not, if he would like to table a Question on the subject, I shall be only too pleased to answer it in due course.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he would consider answering the actual Question on the Order Paper, which is whether Her Majesty's Government believe that the provision for treatment of these cases in this area is adequate.

My Lords, looking at my original Answer, I said that what was important was that the West Midlands Regional Health Authority should have an overall provision for cancer patients. This is what it has got. I accept that it is overloaded in one particular place, namely the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is why it is intended to transfer some patients to other hospitals offering this specialty in the region.

My Lords, will the noble Lord now answer the Question? Is the provision for cancer patients in this area adequate or not adequate in the view of Her Majesty's Government?

My Lords, so far as the question that the noble Lord specifically asked me to address is concerned, I have no reason to suppose that it is inadequate.

My Lords, is it really adequate for the Minister to say that it is entirely a matter for judgment by the health authority? From the very beginning is not the responsibility placed on the Secretary of State by the National Health Service to provide services for the welfare of the people, and that includes all people and people with all types of disease'? Is that not a specific responsibility upon the Secretary of State'? Why cannot the noble Lord answer the Question?

Yes, my Lords, it is a specific responsibility, as the noble Lord knows well. This responsibility, even in his time, was devolved through regions to districts, and that is exactly what is going on now.

My Lords, is it not true that the Secretary of State does not really have the power or the right under the Act to order regional health authorities to expend money in this way or that, unless he makes a special allocation, but only to provide a total grant?

Yes, my Lords, my noble friend, not for the first time, is absolutely right.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the circular issued in 1978, which laid down that per million population there should be 50 beds, two megavoltage units, four consultants and supporting staff is still effective? If it is, why are they failing so dismally in the West Midlands?

My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief the circular is still effective.