Manchester Hospitals (Hansard, 5 February 1991)

§ 4. Mr. Tony Lloyd
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a review of hospital services in the Manchester/Trafford area following the opting-out decision by central Manchester hospitals.

§ Mr. Dorrell
None, Sir.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Is the Minister prepared to put on record in this place what his colleague in another place told me in a letter: that when the new children's hospital is built in central Manchester—on the same site as the now to be opted-out hospital—it will itself be considered for opting out? Is he aware that in the north-west region we already have about double the national child mortality rate and that in central Manchester we have triple the rate? Is the Minister aware that the people of the region do not want opting out, which is irrelevant to their needs, but the resources to make sure that our children do not die?

§ Mr. Dorrell
No hospital has opted out of the NHS and we shall not entertain a proposal from any NHS hospital to opt out of the NHS. NHS hospitals are not for sale. The change that we are introducing is designed to give more power to the local management teams of hospitals to use the resources devoted to those hospitals to the best advantage of the patients.

§ Mr. Knox
Will my hon. Friend explain why Christie hospital in Manchester has refused to supply the drug interleukin to my constituent Mrs. Kendrick, even though it had been prescribed by Dr. Thatcher of that hospital? Does this have anything to do with the reorganisation of hospitals in Manchester?

§ Mr. Dorrell
It has nothing to do with the reorganisation of hospitals. There has been some discussion of the subject in the press today and I make three simple points about it: interleukin does not have a product licence in this country or in the United States; one manufacturer of the drug has decided not to proceed with 148 clinical trials because of doubts over its efficacy, and the decision not to use the drug in Christie hospital was taken by the drug and therapeutics committee of that hospital before Christmas, nine of the 12 members of that committee being medical people.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
In view of the Minister's reference to the minute of the 12 consultants, may I remind him that it clearly specified that the consultants decided that there was general support for interleukin, but that the treatment could not be used within existing funds? Is not it clear from the very committee from which he quotes that its decision not to proceed with a drug that had been used in that hospital for four years, regardless of whether it had a licence, was due to the deficit at Christie hospital? Three years ago, even this Government met hospital deficits with extra funds, not extra cuts. Does not the Minister appreciate that the response to the case shows that the public would much rather that the Christie hospital deficit was cleared by the taxpayer than by not treating Mrs. Kendrick?

§ Mr. Dorrell
Is the hon. Gentleman inviting the House to put his clinical opinion ahead of that of the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the Food and Drug Administration? The use of that drug in Christie hospital was part of a clinical trial and the hospital's drug and therapeutics committee decided that there were greater priorities for the use of the resources available to the hospital. The Labour party is as explicit as the Government in proposing that the only way to run a publicly funded free national health service is on the basis of there being a limit to the resources available to fund it.