STAFFORD HOSPITAL – Speaker says no to emergency debate

24/03/09  

The Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday declined the request for an emergency debate about Stafford hospital from Stafford’s MP David Kidney.

The Speaker does not have to give any reason. David Kidney says he will continue to raise matters relating to the hospital in Parliament:

“Today is Question Time for the Health Ministers and I shall be asking a question about the suspension of the hospital’s Chief Executive. The Healthcare Commission’s report reveals serious failings at the hospital during his time in charge of the hospital so there can be no justification for continuing to pay him a salary out of the hospital’s budget.

“If I have the opportunity I also want to ask if the Health Secretary has reconsidered his decision last week to rule out a public inquiry. There are a number of questions being asked that may not all get answered if only the actions he announced last week are taken.

“I will continue to ask for a debate in Parliament about the Healthcare Commission’s report. There are times set aside for debates suggested by MPs next week and so I am asking the speaker to consider this subject for one of those.”

David’s speech yesterday can be found in Hansard

They work for you.com.    

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter, which I believe should have urgent consideration, namely Parliament’s response to the Healthcare Commission’s report on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

Last Wednesday, the Health Secretary made a statement to the House in response to the report and answered hon. Members’ questions for an hour. That was the right thing to do. He proposed several actions, which were the appropriate responses to the report. However, two things have happened since then, which make me ask the House for an urgent debate.

First, I returned to my constituency on Thursday evening, and since then further accounts have been given to me and others of poor care at the hospital. Given that the Healthcare Commission’s report states that improvements have been made and that the trust is safe, it is important to do everything possible to reinforce that statement straight away. In a debate, I would call for Professor Sir George Alberti’s review, which is due to start this week, to be expanded to cover all parts of the hospital, not only emergency care, and, therefore, for him to head a multidisciplinary team to support the current interim leadership, the senior managers and the hospital staff as they ensure that all the improvements for which the commission’s report calls are carried out and maintained.

Secondly, there are growing calls for a public inquiry, which I support for four reasons: to help the new regulator, who is about to replace the Healthcare Commission, to understand how one trust kept its failures from being discovered for so long; to anchor the work that has been promised concerning an independent assessment of medical records; to ascertain what lessons can be learned for the future about how the hospital conducted nurse training, patient-staff ratios, supervision and monitoring of hospital services, and to ascertain what lessons can be learned for the future about the arrangements in the past at the hospital for public and patient involvement in decision making, supervision and monitoring, and whether those lessons can apply to systems throughout the NHS.

To me, the question of a public inquiry is big enough to merit a debate in the House, but the two issues together make the matter urgent and worthy of debate now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.