---

Health Care (Sutton)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He encourages me to stray slightly beyond the borders of the London borough of Sutton, which I am loth to do. I am sure his constituents have noted his intervention in the debate and the significant points he has made on their behalf. I have a couple of not such good news stories. A point was raised with both my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and me by one of his constituents about the standard of care received by her elderly relative when she was in St. Helier hospital. Apparently my hon. Friend's constituent was asked by nurses whether she lived locally and when she confirmed that she did, she was asked to go home and get some pillows for her relative as there was a shortage in the hospital. Given that the funding the Government have provided the NHS has increased to the extent it has, which we admit, why is it still the case that some of the basics—the fundamentals of care—have still not been addressed as we would like? The constituent described the care received by her elderly relative in hospital and it is not something that any of us would feel comfortable about if our relatives had experienced it. I cannot refer to the case in more detail because I have not checked whether my hon. Friend's constituent would be happy for me to mention anything more specific. None the less, some of the fundamentals have not been addressed. Again on the negative side, my hon. Friend referred to the de-merger. As he said, it could delay proceedings further, but what is more fundamentally dispiriting is that it is a recognition of the fact that the trust never succeeded in getting the Epsom and St. Helier hospitals and their consultants to work together effectively. My final point is a Sutton issue, albeit not specifically or solely, so I hope that the Minister will have been briefed about it. It relates to the Henderson hospital, a matter that my hon. Friend and I have discussed with a succession of Ministers for months, if not years—it is ongoing. The fundamental issue, which has not been picked up by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who has most recently responded to us, is that an assessment of the effectiveness of the therapeutic model at the Henderson has still not been carried out. The Government say that they have looked at whether there has been replication of the model—there has—yet the proposal is to cancel or abolish it without anyone having looked at whether it is effective. The Department of Health say that the therapeutic model has not proved itself because there is no evidence and that, because there is no evidence, we have to get rid of it. However, if anyone had been able to obtain some evidence, it might have confirmed that the therapeutic model was perfectly viable and the right approach. I may have surprised the Minister with that point, but I hope that he can write to my hon. Friend and me to confirm that when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence considers at an international level the appropriateness of models such as the Henderson, it will look at the Henderson and identify hospitals and communities internationally that are doing similar things. That will confirm once and for all whether that type of therapeutic approach for people with personality disorders can work. At the moment the work has not been done, so it would be entirely wrong for the Government to get rid of that therapeutic model. The Minister may say that he is not responsible for that work, but I am sure that he would like in-depth research into the effectiveness of the model. I conclude on that point, but as my hon. Friend said, I hope we shall hear good news about the ““Better Healthcare Closer to Home”” project and that the team's proposal will be endorsed by NHS London, the Department of Health and eventually the Treasury so that the development can take place.