| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dobson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the report. He is quite right in saying that, particularly on Merseyside, and generally, the confidence of clinicians who rely on the blood service for the blood supply to permit them to carry out the operations that they need to carry out, the confidence of patients on whom the clinicians carry out those operations, and the confidence of the donors on whom the blood service relies, must be our principal concern. I hope that the changes that I am in the process of making fulfil that; they are certainly intended to.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of Mr. Mike Fogden's appointment. It is essential that all those connected with the National Blood Authority and the blood service get behind Mr. Fogden in bringing about the improvements that everyone wants.
I would not suggest for a minute that the blood service does not need reorganisation and certain structural changes to improve it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the biggest problem has been the management and leadership behind those changes. My own view is that we must, with all such things, try to keep structural change to a minimum. However, there are clearly faults in the reporting process in the national blood service through to the National Blood Authority, the National Health Service Executive and the Department of Health, so some minor structural and reporting changes may need to be made if we are to bring about the changes we want.
On the question of safety of blood supplies on Merseyside, my reluctant agreement to the transfer of the service from Liverpool to Manchester was based on the advice of Professor Cash that it would be less safe for patients if the Liverpool centre continued both processing and testing. So far, monitoring suggests that arrangements are safe. I expect them to remain safe; that is the object of the exercise. We need to see whether, on balance, after
a year's operation, both the safety and the general effectiveness of the service on Merseyside would be substantially improved by the return of some or all of it from Manchester to Liverpool.
I say to the 2 million people who are blood donors, "We depend on you." Our service is virtually unique in the world, in that people freely give their blood for the benefit of others. It is up to those of us with any responsibility for the service to ensure that all their voluntary effort is put to best use, that none of it is wasted, and that the good will that they put into the system is not squandered by other people.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside):
I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement and decisive action. His decision vindicates the very hard work of campaigners who fought so hard to preserve Liverpool's centre of excellence. I am delighted to hear today's news. Does he agree that the situation left in the National Blood Authority means that one centre in Manchester is conducting testing and processing on behalf of 7 million people and more than 35 hospitals throughout the entire north-west and some of north Wales? Will he assure the House that the monitoring that he will carry out over the next 12 months will not only take account of the specific needs of Liverpool and Merseyside, but will deal with the over-centralisation of the National Blood Authority, a process set in train by the previous Government on the pretext of rationalisation?
Mr. Dobson:
I confirm that the only blood centre in the north-west that undertakes both processing and testing is now in Manchester. I have always had my doubts about the sense of that arrangement.
I too pay tribute to various people, including my hon. Friend herself and some of her colleagues on Merseyside, for their campaigning.
I must also pay tribute to the clinicians on Merseyside, who, whenever I was advised that everything was all right, got in touch with me to tell me that it was not. The National Blood Authority would come up with some new statement on what it intended to do and would tell me that the clinicians on Merseyside were satisfied. The clinicians would then tell me that they were not satisfied, and that was repeated several times. That is why I had little confidence in the people at the top of the National Blood Authority, and it is one of the reasons that at least the chairman has to go.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the prompt work by Professor Cash. We endorse the decision to replace the chairman.
Given that Labour made pre-election pledges to reverse the decision to close the Liverpool blood centre; given that representations were on the Secretary of State's desk in May last year; and given that Professor Cash took only three weeks to write his interim report, why was the appointment of the inquiry delayed until August, by which time it was too late to reverse the Liverpool decision? Had it been appointed in May, it would not have been too late.
What is the implication of the Secretary of State's decision on the centres in Cambridge, Oxford and Plymouth, which were also closed under the previous Government? Does he agree that it would be better if the
blood services were run regionally and made democratically accountable within the normal national health service structures?
Does today's announcement mean that the necessary funding will be made available to enable the National Blood Authority to do its job properly, that the authority will be service-driven and not cost-driven, that blood services will be available throughout the country when and where they are needed, and that they will be of the quality needed?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
No matter what you say, you'll never satisfy him.
Mr. Dobson:
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Liberals appear never to be satisfied. "Eternal dissatisfaction" is their motto.
We won the election on 1 May; I took office on 3 May, and received representations about the situation in Liverpool towards the end of May. I very properly started checking whether those representations were correct. I got all sorts of advice, went back time and again, and eventually decided that some of the advice I was getting was not worth a light. That is why I then appointed Professor Cash.
My understanding is that the rundown of services in Liverpool had been going on for the best part of two years. Some people who work in Liverpool had transferred to Manchester, and some had moved there. By that time, the situation was irreversible. There was no question of any delay on our part.
The situation is as follows: we are now taking steps to improve the blood service and to re-establish public confidence in it. I have asked Mr. Mike Fogden to take a close look at what is happening, on Merseyside and nationally, and to tell me what, in his judgment and in the judgment of others, is the best thing to do. I will then consider his advice very carefully, and take decisive action on what he recommends.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Merseyside, whose views have been completely ignored by the National Blood Authority? Does he agree that we should commend for the work they have done not only hon. Members but all those in Liverpool and Merseyside--including the Liverpool Echo--who have campaigned against the decision? Will he do all he can to ensure that the status quo that existed before last year will be restored? Given the transportation difficulties between Manchester and Liverpool, the very idea of transferring the blood service from Liverpool to Manchester was one of crass stupidity.
Mr. Dobson:
As I said last September and have repeated today, I bitterly regret that the advice I received from Professor Cash was that to keep the Liverpool blood service in the state in which we inherited it would endanger the safety of patients on Merseyside. That was why the transfer had to go ahead. The situation is being monitored closely, and one of the things I shall be asking Mike Fogden to do is come to me after the situation has been monitored for 12 months and give me a considered view on what should be done.
However, I shall not indulge in sleight of hand and try to deceive people on Merseyside. I am not saying today that I can guarantee that the service will come back from Manchester to Liverpool, because it may not. The issue will be looked at rationally and carefully, but the trouble is that the status quo is now different from when the previous Government took the original decision to move the service from Liverpool to Manchester.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
The Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the many hundreds of thousands of blood donors in this country--incidentally, I wonder whether he is a blood donor. As we approach the holiday season, when there is a shortage of blood, will he give an assurance to blood donors that there is no question of any danger to donors, either in Liverpool or in any other part of the country?
Mr. Dobson:
There should not be any danger to donors from donating blood to the blood service. The only reason I do not donate blood is that the blood service will not take my blood, because I have had jaundice in the past.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston):
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today--there will be dancing in the streets of Liverpool tonight. The matter has been one of great public concern and we have massive public meetings attended by thousands of people, who I know will warmly welcome this statement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |