Charles Walker calls on the Health Secretary to personally intervene to prevent unfair budget cuts to the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust, which provides mental health services.

4.31 pm

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): Once again, I wish to raise the issue of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust, which provides mental health services. It is an important trust, which serves Hertfordshire and my constituency, and faces significant cuts this year and perhaps in coming years.

In case I sound churlish, let me say that the Government’s record in mental health is moving in the right direction. Everyone, across the political spectrum, wants the best service delivered to some of society’s most vulnerable people. Let me add the caveat, however, that the Government have probably slightly lost their way recently, especially in Hertfordshire.

As Members of the House and the wider public know, mental health problems come with a huge amount of stigma attached. One need only think of the headlines in The Sun when Frank Bruno underwent mental health problems—the headline “Frank Loono” was considered—and when Adam Ant had his problems. The behaviour of the media was disgraceful.

For that reason, I am glad that the Government are spending money on a campaign to raise awareness of mental health problems and to try to reduce the stigma—Shift. Unfortunately, that campaign receives funding of only £1 million across England, which is 2p per head. That pales into insignificance when compared with the 15p per head spent in Scotland, although that is not a huge sum of money either. I am afraid that those figures are not in the same ballpark as the money spent on smoking cessation programmes, important though those are.

The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust was founded in 2001 and has operated since without going into deficit; it has balanced its books. This year, however, despite its good financial record, it was asked to make savings of £5.6 million—more than a 5 per cent. cut in its annual budget. I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate on 19 April, when I mentioned several of the services to be closed. I will not rehash those points today; the House is aware of them and they are recorded in Hansard. However, those closures are against the proposals in the Government’s White Paper “Investing in Your Mental Health”, which most Members of the House welcomed.

When I first raised the issue in that Adjournment debate, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) said:

“The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust’s total increased investment in its mental health services is £4.2 million over and above inflation for the three-year period from 2003 to 2006.”—[ Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 204.]

That sounds good, until we remember that although the trust had an additional £4.2 million, the Government are now asking for £5.6 million back. What they gave with one hand they seem to be taking back with two.

When I raised that with the Minister, she said

“I will come to some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.”—[ Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 204.]

Unfortunately, she forgot to do so. Undeterred, I raised the same issue with the Secretary of State for Health—who, I may say, knows me by name, which is probably more than some of my own Front Benchers do, so I have a great deal of time for her. When I asked my question, she looked me straight in the eye and said

“I shall come to that point in a little more detail in a moment.”—[ Official Report, 9 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 193.]

I had absolutely no reason to disbelieve the Secretary of State. After all, she calls me Charles in the Division Lobbies and always makes time for me. Unfortunately, she too forgot to return to the point.

Mrs. May: What were you doing in the same Division Lobby?

Mr. Walker: Only yesterday evening I bumped into the Secretary of State during the vote on the Education and Inspections Bill as we supported the Government against their own Back Benchers. When I suggested to her that she might want to answer the question about what was happening to the money in a little more detail at a future date, she smiled very sweetly and moved on quickly.

I am extremely disappointed that my local mental health trust faces such huge cuts over the coming year. If we are to believe Government figures given during a debate on 7 February, they account for a third of all the money being clawed back from mental health trusts in the United Kingdom. In response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Minister of State, Department of Health said

“11 of 84 trusts are making expenditure reductions that amount to £16.5 million out of a total expenditure on mental health of more than £6 billion”.—[ Official Report, 7 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 755.]

Well, £16.5 million across 11 trusts does not sound a lot of money—in fact, I am sure that it is a little more than that—but my trust accounts for a third of that amount, £5.6 million, with the other 10 trusts have to make cuts of £1.1 million each. I cannot believe that that is just or fair, particularly given that the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust has never been in deficit in the five years for which it has been in operation. It has always balanced its books. What message do those cuts send to other trusts throughout the country that are struggling to balance their books? Not a very positive one.

Perhaps the Hertfordshire trust has been a little naive. Why did it even bother to balance its books over the past five years? Perhaps it should have just gone into deficit, like so many other trusts. I am concerned about the fact that the trust is being asked to bail out other parts of the health service. That seems to contradict what the Secretary of State for Health believes. When I asked her about this—no, I did not ask her, actually; she just said it—she announced:

“we are reforming the way in which the NHS is run so that every hospital”

—I assume that she meant “trust”—

“takes responsibility for organising the best care within its budget. We will not expect others to bail them out.”—[ Official Report, 9 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 196.]

That is simply not the case. As I have explained, my local mental health trust is being asked to bail out hospitals and trusts that are in deficit to the tune of £5.6 million. It is being penalised, and there seems to be no justice in the way in which it is being treated.

Of course, the Government will say that they have put local decision making in the hands of local health communities. That does not apply in this case. After all, it is the Government who fund the NHS, via the taxpayer. It is the Government who expect trusts to achieve financial balance, and demand that they do so. And it is the Government who, in this instance, are in essence asking for their money back.

I have raised my concerns with a number of charities, including Rethink, which as most Members know is a leading mental health charity. In its briefing, which was sent to Members of Parliament only a couple of weeks ago, it states:

“We believe that this is a national pattern in which wider health deficits are being addressed by shifting resources out of mental health.”

That is a fairly damning and worrying statement that should concern everyone in this Chamber and at the Department of Health, and all those outside this Chamber who would doubtless like to be here now. Mental health cuts are the deepest cuts. Mental health has traditionally been underfunded, so every pound taken from it can almost be multiplied by two or three when one contrasts that service with the better-funded areas of health care, such as cancer and heart disease.

I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central to ask her whether she was aware of the scale of the cuts and of the damage that they would do to local mental health services in Hertfordshire. She kindly responded on 5 May, saying:

“In deciding what proposals should be considered, the PCTs took account of...efficiency savings that could be made and that would avoid an adverse impact on front-line services”.

Well, the cuts in Hertfordshire will have an impact on front-line services—a very severe one. The hon. Lady also said that PCTs took account of

“proposals that were in accord with the principles and priorities set out in the recent consultation on mental health services”.

I assume that she was referring to “Investing In Your Mental Health”.

I have spoken to national charities and charities in the local health community, and they are absolutely convinced that the cuts will impact on people’s health and increase the risk of suicide, and might lead to additional suicides. The hon. Lady went on to say that proposals were considered

“that did not worsen any inequality in the delivery of services across Hertfordshire.”

I am afraid to say that those proposals will lead to huge inequality in the delivery of services and have an enormous impact on many people’s lives.

I ask the Secretary of State to intervene in this matter. She is a decent woman, and if she took the time to look at what is going on and to consider the fact that a trust that has never been in deficit in five years is being penalised for the deficits of others, she might change her mind. As Rethink said, the Department of Health is complacent about these cuts and the impact that they will have on some of the sickest people in society—people who are ignored by, and who feel marginalised by, society. These are vital, critical services for local people, and central to their well-being.

4.43 pm

...

OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEBATE

Mr. Walker: Does not my right hon. Friend think it remarkable that a trust that has balanced its books for five years without going into deficit is now being asked to contribute £5.6 million to other trusts’ deficits?

Mrs. May: Yes, I do. It is also remarkable that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, which is the most efficient trust, has to make 600 job cuts as a result of the requirement to cut the amount of money that it is spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke movingly about the impact of that decision, which is being made today, on not only those who lose their jobs but Horton general hospital in his constituency and services for his constituents generally.

| Hansard