Health Authority Mergers (Hansard, 6 July 1993)

§ 2. Mr. Pike
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received on the subject of health authority mergers.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville)
I have received a number of representations on that subject, including one from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Most recently, I had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

§ Mr. Pike
As we move towards the merger of the two health authorities in north-east Lancashire, can the Minister give the assurance that when the consultation takes place it will be genuine, and not a total sham, as was the consultation before we moved to trust status? Will he also guarantee that, as a result of the merger, there will not be a rationalisation that will provide less effective local services to the people of north-east Lancashire?

§ Mr. Sackville
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I can give him that assurance. Those to be consulted will include local Members of Parliament, any districts or family health services authorities that are affected, local community health councils, interested local authorities, trusts, universities and professional and representative organisations.
On the second point, there is every reason to suppose that the new purchasing arrangements will be of great benefit to patients in the hon. Gentleman's area.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
My hon. Friend is well aware that Macclesfield borough council, Crewe and Nantwich borough council, Macclesfield community health council, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) are strongly opposed to the proposed merger of Crewe and Macclesfield health authorities.
Does my hon. Friend agree that those bodies and individuals are more representative of the people of that area than anyone else? Will he take their representations seriously into account? Does he accept that it would be better for the Government to halt the merger of districts until they have considered the merger of regions, and perhaps put the Mersey and North Western regions together, enabling Macclesfield to have a more natural partner to the north rather than Crewe to the south?

§ Mr. Sackville
I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views. He has failed to mention all the bodies and organisations that are in favour of the merger. I must remind my hon. Friend, however, that if he wants the best for the patients in his constituency, he will want a stronger purchaser with a larger number of residents, so that the purchaser has more influence with providers. That is the whole point of the purchaser-provider split.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Is the Minister aware that that was the greatest load of claptrap that even he has ever uttered? There is no reasonable argument—medical, political or economic—for jamming together those two health authorities, which do not have common services and do not want the amalgamation. Will the Minister admit that he has no more intention of taking any notice of local people or local Members of Parliament than he has of learning to fly around the Chamber without a kite?

§ Mr. Sackville
The hon. Lady must realise that common services are not the main point. The main point is that a strong purchaser representing her constituents will be better able to assess the health needs of the whole area.