---

Burnley General Hospital

I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the future of Burnley general hospital, and it is an honour to make my Westminster Hall debut under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope, albeit in Committee Room 10. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for taking the trouble to be present, and I will be happy to listen to his contribution if he wishes to intervene. The issue we are debating does not only affect Burnley. Burnley general hospital serves not only my constituency of about 90,000 members of the public, but also the wider north-east of Lancashire. My petition in support of the hospital, run in conjunction with the Burnley Express, attracted 10,000 signatures from my constituents, but if we add together all the names on all the petitions that have been organised in support of Burnley general hospital—those by myself, by the trade unions and by individual community activists throughout east Lancashire—the number rises to around 60,000. My petition stated that we"““reject any proposals to close Burnley General Hospital or Burnley's Accident and Emergency Department””," and we"““strongly oppose any options that would be detrimental to the health of Burnley and Padiham people.””" Let me explain why we felt that was needed. A few years ago, the acute trusts at Burnley and Blackburn hospitals agreed to merge. I am told by those who were involved in the making of that decision—not least my predecessor as Member for Burnley, Peter Pike—that assurances were given at the time that this was a purely administrative merger, and that there would be no transfer of services between Burnley and Blackburn. However, towards the end of last year the new East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust published four proposals emerging from their initial work on a clinical services review, all of which appeared to lead to a significant downgrading of Burnley general hospital in favour of Blackburn. The impetus for that change appears to be that the trust had mismanaged its finances. In its last annual report—that of 2004–05—the chairperson of the trust, Christine Kirk said that"““in plain housekeeping terms we have been living beyond our means and we must strive to bring this situation under control””." My point is that is not the fault of my constituents that the trust has got itself into this mess, and so it is not my constituents who should suffer as it tries to get itself out of it. One of the published options proposed shutting down Burnley general hospital, which understandably led to ridicule in my constituency—and beyond—not least because the hospital is currently in phase 5 of a private finance initiative redevelopment project. I have since been told by the management that that was never a real option, and I am strongly of the view that if that is the case it should never have been put on the table. Therefore, my first question for the Minister is, was it was necessary under Cabinet Office guidance to publish options that nobody has any intention of taking seriously? That was insulting to the intelligence of my constituents. However, more worrying was the realisation that the two options that were being seriously considered would both lead to the removal of intensive care beds at Burnley general hospital, with people having to go to Blackburn instead. It would be an understatement to say that that has caused uproar; it has led to the launch of a ““save our hospital”” campaign, with the full support of the local newspaper, which ran it as its main story for a number of weeks. My constituents fear that they are more likely to die if they have to travel further to receive intensive care services. If one of my constituents is in a serious condition—as a result of a heart attack or a road traffic accident, for example—it is surely simple common sense that a longer journey time to intensive care means that they are more likely to die. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that. Specifically, I would like to know his estimate of the additional length of time it will take for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends—in particular of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle—to get to intensive care in Blackburn, instead of in Burnley. How much longer will they be on the road, and what will be the increased risk of mortality from that additional travel time? Let me offer further examples. If one of my constituents has a complication during routine surgery at Burnley general hospital, or during childbirth at the maternity unit, they will be more likely to die if they have to be moved to Blackburn, instead of receiving intensive care support where they are undergoing the operation or giving birth. If one of my constituents arrives at the accident and emergency department at Burnley in an acute state, surely they are more likely to die if they then have to be transported to Blackburn, instead of receiving the intensive care that they need on site? What are the Minister's views on those examples? There are also concerns that if the intensive care unit is lost, the whole of the accident and emergency facility will surely follow, that no complex surgery—routine or otherwise—could take place on the site for fear of complications, and that for the same reason the maternity unit would be unsustainable and the hospital itself would gradually become unviable. Losing the ICU in Burnley would also presumably lead to a reduction in intensive care beds throughout the sub-region, at a time when intensive care beds are already in high demand. Since the publication of these preliminary options, I have been deluged with letters from desperately worried constituents. I cannot walk through the town without being stopped by somebody who fears for what will happen as a result of the proposals, and I share their concerns. People honestly believe—and I think they are right—that they would be more likely to die if these proposals were carried out than under the existing situation. Therefore, we protested. We met with the trust managers and handed over the petition here in Westminster. We turned up in droves at their board meetings. We organised a fantastic march through the centre of town on a Saturday shortly before Christmas, which culminated in mulled wine—non-alcoholic, of course, for health reasons—in the central square. A similar march took place in Pendle. That worked. As a result of our pressure, the management said that there would now be a new proposal for emergency care, dubbed the ““fifth option””, which would focus on"““the retention of both planned and unscheduled care in some specialities at the two main hospitals in the towns””—" those at Blackburn and Burnley. The trust's press release went on to say that the new proposal"““comes in response to fears expressed by some local people about possible changes to critical care services at Burnley General Hospital””." I wish to put on record a big thank you to all those who joined our campaign. Making that effort was worth while. We have come far, and we now need to put in place the final piece of the jigsaw. On Friday this week, a steering group consisting of all the relevant primary care trusts will decide which options will go out to formal statutory consultation. It is imperative that the option that is put forward as the preferred option is new option 5. We are a proud town with a strong history and a great hospital, and we need to keep intensive care beds at Burnley general hospital for those cases where to travel further would mean an unacceptable risk to life. Access to intensive care—and, indeed, accident and emergency in general—is a bit like the emergency exit in an aeroplane; we hope to goodness that we will not need to use it, but we blooming well want to make sure that it is nearby just in case we do. That is our main criterion against which the formal proposals will be judged when they emerge in a few days' time. However, it is not the only criterion. I have a 10-point checklist against which the proposals will be judged when they are finally published. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by stating them, so if any of my hon. Friends wish to intervene, now is the time to do so; I am very glad that they are present to add their voices to mine. My first, and most important, question is, will there be intensive care beds in Burnley? Also, how many intensive care beds will there be in east Lancashire as a whole? Secondly, will accident and emergency services remain in Burnley? Thirdly, what will we specialise in? Will Blackburn people come to Burnley to be treated, and if so, in which areas? Fourthly, what will happen to Burnley's fantastic Edith Watson maternity unit where so many of my constituents and their children were born—including my own daughter, last year? Fifthly, how many more lives would be saved, or lost, as a result of the proposals? Sixthly, what would the trust do to help my constituents travel between Blackburn and Burnley—for example, to visit relatives? Seventhly, would additional ambulances be provided to compensate? Eighthly, what are the medical experts saying, particularly those who specialise in intensive care? Ninthly, what is being done to encourage more young doctors and nurses to apply to work in Burnley, so that we can bring the expertise of the future into our town? Finally, and very importantly, what will happen to the medical equipment that has been donated to Burnley general hospital by the fundraising efforts of successive mayors and mayoresses and the contributions of so many of my hard-working constituents? The answers to those 10 questions will determine whether my constituents believe they are better or worse off as a result of the proposed changes. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on each of those points, and I thank my colleagues for their patience and courtesy in listening to my contribution this morning.