---

Column 255

Gardiner, Sir George

Garnier, Edward

Gill, Christopher

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gorst, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Hague, William

Hampson, Dr Keith

Harris, David

Hayes, Jerry

Heald, Oliver

Hendry, Charles

Horam, John

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Hunter, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Legg, Barry

Lidington, David

Lightbown, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew

Maclean, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Malone, Gerald

Mans, Keith

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Mates, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Merchant, Piers

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Norris, Steve

Oppenheim, Phillip

Page, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Porter, David (Waveney)

RichaRichard

Sackville, Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spink, Dr Robert

Sproat, Iain

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Willetts, David

Wood, Timothy

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

Mr. Michael Brown.

Question accordingly negatived.

---

Column 256

Killingbeck Hospital, Leeds

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

11 pm

Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East) : I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Health to matters relating to the proposed centralisation at the Leeds general infirmary of the cardio-thoracic facilities of Killingbeck hospital and the subsequent disposal of that hospital site. Although I shall also touch on the parallel proposal to centralise the neurosurgical work currently undertaken at Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with that in greater detail.

I wish to draw a number of matters to the attention of the Minister and, in particular, to ask him to intervene. I must underline the widespread unhappiness felt in Leeds and the surrounding areas about the proposals to relocate the excellent work carried out at Killingbeck hospital at Leeds general infirmary. That hospital has been long established and is secure in the affection of the Leeds people. Excellent work is carried out in its cardio-thoracic and respiratory units by their completely dedicated staff.

More than 900,000 heart operations are carried out at the hospital, and some involve tremendous work on children. The hospital's reputation is worldwide, it conducts first-class research and could continue to provide that superb service to the wider community for a fraction of the capital sum that has been expended so generously by the Government to the LGI.

Killingbeck's location is unique because it is surrounded by park land and has excellent road links with all of Yorkshire. It is a source of puzzlement to all in West Yorkshire that those benefits have been disregarded in the rush to centralise services in a city centre site, in a multi-storey block at that. Time and time again, lay and medical staff of the hospital stress the recuperative value of its surroundings.

It is of vital interest to consider the history of the closure proposals, which appeared in the 1980s, when a regional review was conducted. That review eventually led to a report, as yet unpublished, that suggested that the thoracic facilities of Killingbeck and the neurosurgical facilities of Pinderfields might be centralised at LGI.

The unpublished report was hotly disputed by the medical staff at Killingbeck hospital. It was not then a unanimous view and, until recently, the argument in favour of centralisation bringing patient benefits was severely challenged. However, it was and has always been accepted that more money had to be spent, and that both buildings, the LGI and Killingbeck, suffer from problems of age. There is a great difference between spending modest but sensible sums and the amount being advanced in respect of the LGI.

When, in 1989, the unpublished report suggested centralising the LGI services, the proposal was warmly welcomed by the LGI, as it meant securing much-needed capital investment in the aging hospital. The proposed centralisation gave the hospital a golden opportunity. The decision to go ahead with the proposal was taken in 1989, and work on a £4 million multi-storey car park started last year, as the Minister is aware.

---

Column 257

However, as with most things in life, nothing stands still. The Pinderfields hospital's proposed move was put out to public consultation a year ago, met with unanimous opposition and was hurriedly withdrawn. The inevitable committee was established, and is still deliberating to this day. Killingbeck relocation and closure proposals were released for consultation 10 days ago, and are programmed to run for three months.

A decision taken in 1989, which committed more than £75 million of public money, has been overtaken by events. One major

user--Pinderfields--has serious doubts, and the second user is in the early stages of consultation and the opposition is just as fierce. Some issues relating to the credibility of the consultation need airing and answering.

There is deep disquiet in Leeds over the status of the consultation. First, why is the Minister allowing the LGI to go ahead with a £70 million new block, built with the stated aim of centralising both cardio-thoracic and neurosurgical work when, as I stand here in the Chamber, neither proposal has completed its consultation period?

Secondly, why is the Minister allowing a contract to be signed for the new building when it is clear that Pinderfields will not permit the neurosurgical work to come to Leeds? If the Minister replies that the work will come to Leeds even though the proposal faced total opposition, what validity does consultation have?

The third and most important reason for concern relates to the consultation and an open public debate on the value of centralising the services. How can the people of Leeds feel confident in the consultation process when, from 1 April this year, the LGI has been managing the Killingbeck site? Does the Minister know that, only days ago, the LGI reinstated a whistleblower, but only after strenuous efforts had been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)?

That behaviour is hardly the sign of a benevolent management. Does the Minister feel that, on the basis of such behaviour, staff will be inclined to participate in an open debate on the key medical aspects of the exercise? I believe that public airing of the medical arguments is impossible, as staff are only too well aware that their future careers rest with the LGI.

Fourthly, how can the people of Leeds have faith in the consultation process when, the day after the consultation paper was released, the Yorkshire Evening Post revealed secret plans prepared by Touche Ross at the instruction of a developer which disclosed details of a multi-million-pound development, including a private health centre, a luxury hotel and a shopping complex on the Killingbeck site?

How can the public have confidence and feel that their views will be taken into account when a director of health care, a member of the consulting body, admitted last week in a radio programme that the health care body had already had discussions and--the impertinence of it--had even had disagreements over the proceeds from the sale of the Killingbeck site? Remember, that body has been issuing the consultation documents. How can the Minister defend the validity of the consultations when a consultant at Killingbeck hospital was quoted by The Yorkshire Evening Post as saying :

"Public consultation will be nothing more than a cosmetic exercise"?

---