IF IT achieves nothing else the Healthier Together consultation has managed one almost impossible feat; it has united Greater Manchester MPs across the political spectrum in opposition to it. To achieve this level of unity in the minefield of health policy, when constituency and ideological interests are at stake, is bordering on the miraculous.
This surprising common front arose initially from a private briefing held in a House of Commons committee room, on April 29 earlier this year.
I have never witnessed such an incompetent display from professionals in all my time as an elected representative.
There was nothing unexpected in the Healthier Together team’s presentation of the problems facing the NHS in Greater Manchester: a projected black hole of £1billion in a £6billion budget, accident and emergency departments overwhelmed, an inability of many patients to get an appointment to see their GP when required and poor surgical standards in some hospitals leading to unnecessary deaths during and after operations.
The solutions, at least in principle, are straightforward: longer opening hours for GPs to take pressure off casualty departments, better care in the community to relieve the pressure and costs of patients who are in hospital unnecessarily and higher clinical standards during surgery.
So far so good no MP or anybody else could disagree with these laudable aspirations.
It was a different story when MPs started to fire off questions. I have never witnessed such an incompetent display from professionals in all my time as an elected representative. More than £4million had been spent on financial, legal and PR advice yet nobody knew if the proposals were lawful or financially viable.
Worse North Manchester General Hospital, Bury and Tameside are being downgraded without consultation but there will be consultation on the future of Bolton, Wigan, Wythenshawe and Stockport. Many decisions have obviously already been taken. Why? There was no answer.
Although it was claimed that there was widespread clinical support GPs, Hospital Trusts and Healthwatch have been queuing up to provide professional criticism. Healthwatch even claim that there is no legal power to spend the £4million that has already gone down the drain on this shambles.
There was one unambiguous, clear statement that no hospital or accident and emergency unit would close. Guess what? This commitment was left out of the consultation document. I am not surprised because with the 16% deficit predicted the future of 2 or 3 hospitals is in jeopardy. The downgrading of hospitals is the slippery slope to closure.
There has long been a semi-private view amongst health professionals that Greater Manchester only needed 4 or 5 super hospitals. We are continuing down the pathway that has closed Monsall, Booth Hall, the Jewish, the Northern, Ancoats and Withington and has reduced the services at Trafford and Rochdale. The consultation document is dishonest. It is not clear whether it is about creating specialist hospitals, primary care or higher clinical standards. It actually is about the closure of hospitals and further cuts.
The consultation document is full of pointless ‘apple pie and motherhood’ statements like ‘knowing the council and the NHS will work together to look after mum’ and ‘knowing that my patients will get the specialist care they need in an emergency’.
Pointless NHS apple pie statements
These are an insult to the reader’s intelligence as is the questionnaire. It is almost impossible to do anything but answer the questions in the affirmative. Of course we want change for the better but this consultation is a ruse to give the health authorities carte blanche to do whatever they wish.
This process has the stink of the congestion charge. Remember that? We were told that it had large public support from a similarly twisted questionnaire but when the public voted they rejected it by 4 to 1.
This process is no better because in public it is led by doctors. I trust them when I’m ill but not to decide the future of £6billion worth of public expenditure in which they have vested financial interests. Why don’t they tell us that Mott MacDonald, a large multinational business, is one of the partners in this project?
The NHS is at a crossroads and big decisions on national and local financing as well as competition and privatisation will be taken by the party who wins the next general election. If the Conservatives win Mott Macdonald and so on will be given their head and privatisation will accelerate. A Labour Party victory will mean many of the changes that have happened in the last four years will be reversed but cash will have to be found to provide world class healthcare for everybody.
The present proposals are not credible as they stand. Their schedule needs to be aligned with the electoral timetable. In the meantime NHS Greater Manchester should concentrate on improving the management of its core services, many of which are poor. From booking appointments to care on wards and the provision of specialist nurses we need to get the basics right before we have yet another major reorganisation.
You can read the parliamentary debate here. You can download the consultation document here. My advice is don’t fill in the questionnaire, it is pointless, email your response to them here.
Confidential has asked for a response from the Conservative Party.
Graham StringerGraham Stringer is the Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton with a majority of 12,303. He was elected to Parliament in 1997 for the now abolished constituency of Manchester Blackley.
Prior to this he was the Leader of Manchester City Council from 1984-1996.
He is one of the few MPs to have science experience, as a professional analytical chemist. He is a member of The Science and Technology Committee at Westminster.
Confidential welcomes columns from all sitting MPs in the area regardless of political party - as long as they are able to write interesting articles.
