HC Deb 21 January 1997 vol 288 cc730-1
6. Mr. Nicholas Winterton

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of renal services in Greater Manchester and Cheshire. [10361]

Mr. Horam

Health authorities serving Greater Manchester and south Cheshire have recently consulted the public on proposals to reorganise renal services in the area. The health authority that is co-ordinating the review is presenting its evaluation to all seven participating authorities this month. Afterwards, health authority members and others will have the opportunity to consider the proposals further.

Mr. Winterton

Does my hon. Friend accept that renal failure is a complex illness that often needs the support of other specialties? Does he accept that Macclesfield community health council, which has conducted an in-depth inquiry into the matter and sought public views on the provision of renal services in Cheshire and Greater Manchester, has advanced the unanimous opinion that Wythenshawe hospital, under Dr. Mike Venning and his colleagues, would provide a wonderful hub for the provision of renal services? It found that it would be an advantage to retain three hubs—the Manchester royal infirmary, Hope hospital and Wythenshawe hospital—rather than reducing the hubs to two, with all the associated problems that that would create for those with renal diseases.

Mr. Horam

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He raises an important point. I put it to him that this is a clinician-led review that involves a lot of capital investment. It will obviously be predicated on the desire to secure better health care for renal patients. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend—the House will understand my relief in saying this, knowing my hon. Friend's formidable lobbying attributes—that it will include improved satellite facilities in Macclesfield which, as he knows, are not nurse or clinician-led at the moment. They will receive full medical support under the proposals.

My hon. Friend will also understand that, if there is opposition to the proposals, or if the health authorities cannot agree on them, they will come to Ministers. In light of that, I must retain the independent view of Ministers to judge the proposals properly when they come before us. However, I shall certainly take into account the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Would the Minister like to astonish us all by putting the patients' interests first? This is not a matter that can be decided by the ill-mannered fighting of individual consultants: it is a matter of providing high-quality satellite facilities to serve not just Macclesfield but any patient in south Cheshire who requires renal assistance. Will the Minister confirm that, as far as he is concerned, the quality of renal services will always take precedence over the particular interests of individual Members of Parliament?

Mr. Horam

Of course that is the case. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), this is a clinician-led review with the object of putting more capital investment into a necessary area in order to provide a better service. I am sure that the proposals will achieve that aim, but we take into account all points of view—both those opposed and those in favour—when we consider them.