Reedyford Hospital, Pendle (Hansard, 25 April 1983)

§ Mr. John Lee (Nelson and Colne)

I welcome the opportunity of this Adjournment debate and thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security for being here this evening.

There are few more emotive subjects in Pendle than the demolition of Reedyford hospital. Built originally as a private house in 1892, it was converted by public subscription into a war memorial hospital in 1914. For nearly 60 years, thousands of my constituents and their families have benefited from the high standards of treatment and care given at what is regarded by all of us as a family and very personal hospital, which Pendle folk regard as their own. I pay tribute to our current and former medical staff for all that has been, and is being, done at Reedy ford.

Given that background, it was not suprising that when the line of the M65 Calder Valley motorway was mooted —I place on record my commitment to the motorway as it will be of vital importance to the economic prosperity of north-east Lancashire, and especially Pendle—there was considerable local outcry when it was realised that Reedyford was vulnerable.

Following a public inquiry relating to the line of the M65 held in early 1974, the inspector issued his report,which spoke of: The existing buildings of the Reedyford Hospital block—the only feasible route for the motorway at that point. The inspector went on: The motorway is so important to the whole Calder Valley, and the hospital is so important to the Borough of Nelson that the only possible compromise is one of timing. The hospital buildings must therefore be replaced in Nelson before the existing hospital is demolished. This would involve the hospital board—which has agreed to the demolition of the hospital on an 'equivalent reinstatement' basis—in the early discharge of its promise to hold local consultations. If the motorway were to progress faster than the building of a replacement hospital, there would ensue a difficult period during which temporary links from the motorway round Reedyford hospital would have to suffice; an awkward but not unwarrantable arrangement, in those difficult and short term circumstances. He continued: I am not therefore recommending any amendment to the motorway scheme here, but emphatically urging a very vital dovetailing of the project with the local replacement of the hospital, under a planning condition. I next quote from the Secretary of State's decision, given in July 1975. It said: The proposal shall not be implemented to such an extent as would involve the demolition of Reedyford Hospital, Nelson, until such time as alternative premises on an equivalent reinstatement basis are available for use in Nelson. The inspector's conclusions, which were unanimously supported by Pendle council, were that the hospital buildings at Reedyford must be replaced in Nelson before the hospital is demolished. Mounting concern led to a public meeting held at Silverman hall in February 1977, which I attended, when I was prospective parliamentary candidate more than six years ago. The following resolution was passed: This meeting demands that Reedyford Memorial hospital is not closed down unless and until an alternative hospital and alternative facilities are provided in the Nelson area. A working party was established by the former Lancashire area health authority to make proposals for new 708 hospital facilities post-Reedyford. In broad terms, it made the recommendation that, as to acute services, there should be a new ward unit of 60 beds together with a new operating suite and supporting facilities built at Burnley general hospital, and that outpatient and supporting services should be provided on a site in the Pendle district. It also said that hospital provision should be made there for 20 general practitioner/post-operative beds, a standard ward unit of 24 geriatric beds to meet the district shortfall, 28 ESMI beds plus 50 mufti-purpose day places together with outpatient facilities, a mortuary, a diagnostic X-ray room, and 14 physiotherapy and 10 occupational therapy places plus the usual back-up facilities.

The recommendation was that Reedyford with its 62 beds would disappear, with new and improved facilities being provided by the combination of new developments at Burnley general hospital and the new community hospital. During this period and beyond, I praised the work and dedication of the Reedyford action group, our community health council, the Pendle local authority and those at all levels of our hospital authorities who have worked hard for a successful outcome to our problem.

Letters from the North-Western regional authority indicated its attitude. It said: The regional health authority is fully committed to this development — that is the proposed community hospital —although the timing of construction must inevitably be governed by the availability of resources. A letter from the chairman of the regional health authority stated: It seems likely, therefore, that the community hospital will not only have started on site but will be well on the way towards completion before Reedyford Hospital is required for demolition. We now move into 1983. In February, in response to a question from me, the Under-Secretary of State's colleague, the Minister, replied: The North-Western regional health authority is reviewing its capital building programme and expects to announce its decisions, including that on the proposed Nelson community hospital, before the summer. The authority's current aim is to enable Reedyford hospital to be demolished in 1987, but this may need reconsideration in the light of its decisions on the capital programme."— [Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 130.] Warning lights were beginning to flash.

Towards the end of February, following inquiries by me, a letter from the new Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority's district administrator, Mr. Brierly—who has been extremely helpful in this regard—stated: We understand from Lancashire County Council that the Nelson to Colne section of the M65 roadway is due to commence in 1983–84, but the agreement from the regional health authority is that the site of the Reedyford Memorial Hospital will be made available only when the replacement facilities at the Burnley General Hospital are completed and commissioned. The current estimate of that completion is the first quarter of 1987. On current information it is anticipated that the first completion date for the Pendle Community Hospital will be the first quarter of 1988 but we are aware that the Regional Capital Programme is subject to review at present and the outcome of that review is not yet known. Finally, following a meeting that I had with Sir John Page, the chairman of the North-Western regional health authority at Westminster, he wrote to me on 18 March as follows: the regional authorities' capital programme is currently under review, adjustments to it having had to be made as a result of the reduced capital resources now expected and a number of other factors. Because of the interface between this scheme and the motorway programme and also the fact that part of the expenditure involved, being a replacement for some of the 709 facilities at Reedyford Memorial Hospital, will be met by compensation, it is hoped to keep slippage on the scheme to a minimum. The site for the new community hospital in Leeds road, Nelson, was acquired by the RHA in March 1983—last month— in accordance with the original timetable. It adjoins the new health centre and is ideally situated for the majority of my constituents.

My purpose in requesting this Adjournment debate is threefold. First, I wanted to draw the attention of Parliament and the Minister to our problem and its history. Secondly, I wanted to ask the Minister to ensure that adequate capital resources are made available to the North-Western RHA and to the area authority in revenue terms. Thirdly, I wanted to urge my hon. Friend to use the authority of his office — down through the tiers of decision-making — to guarantee no slippage in our programme.

Even now, at best, a 20-month gap seems to be opening up between the likely demolition of Reedyford hospital in the spring of 1987 and the completion of the community hospital, perhaps by the end of 1988. We need our community hospital, and the people of Pendle would rightly, I believe, regard postponement as a betrayal, given the guarantees and history that I have attempted to summarise in this short debate.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) on raising a subject in which he has been most actively involved since 1979 and which is clearly of real concern to his constituents. The closure of Reedyford hospital is necessary for a somewhat unusual reason. The point of concern is not, for once, the closure itself, but the need to ensure that replacement facilities will be available before the closure and eventual demolition of the hospital.

Reedyford hospital, situated just outside Nelson, is scheduled for closure and demolition so that the M65 Calder Valley motorway scheme can be completed. It is the local hospital for Nelson, but it provides a district service to the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority. Built in 1936, like many small hospitals at that time, by public subscription, it has always benefited substantially from the involvement of local voluntary organisations, and I know that local loyalty to the hospital is exceptionally strong. However, its closure, as my hon. Friend said, is not now at issue, and the need for the new motorway is, by and large, accepted.

The facilities provided at Reedyford comprise just under 60 acute beds, an operating theatre, X-ray room, pharmacy and other supporting services. Following local objections to the loss of Reedyford, the then Lancashire area health authority, which prior to NHS restructuring was responsible for health services in that locality, set up a working party to consider how best to replace the facilities needed there by the population of Burnley district.

The working party, which included representatives of the appropriate health authorities, local authorities and community health councils, unanimously agreed a package of proposals which were approved by the then area health authority in 1978. These proposals form the 710 basis of the current strategy, adopted by the successor authority—Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale —which is to replace the services currently provided at Reedyford hospital by new facilities at Burnley general hospital, some three miles away.

This strategy also proposes another scheme in the immediate vicinity — the provision of a community hospital in Nelson. I know that, because of its location, this community hospital is, perhaps not unnaturally, regarded locally as the replacement for Reedyford, but it will in fact provide mainly new services for the district. The beds and day places proposed in this development are additional facilities, and only the outpatient department and physiotherapy components can be regarded as replacements for facilities at Reedyford. Since it was first introduced into the North-Western regional health authority's capital programme, the community hospital scheme has not been planned to open in advance of the closure of Reedyford, although it has always been hoped to start work on site before Reedyford is demolished.

I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the background to the health authority's proposals for replacing facilities currently provided at Reedyford and further to develop services in the districts, but I hope that he will accept that this preamble is necessary to set the scene. I should perhaps point out that, in what is a needy region with many claims on limited resources, investment approaching £4 million has already been made in the Burnley district in recent years, including about £1 million to provide a health centre in Nelson.

As matters stand at present, the main replacement works at Burnley general hospital are included in the North-Western regional health authority's current capital programme for a start in 1984–85, although some work concerned with the provision of support services falls within the current financial year. The community hospital at Nelson is programmed to start in 1985–86. On this basis agreement has been reached with the Lancashire county council that it should be possible to vacate the Reedyford site during the early months of 1987, and I understand that the county council's programme for the roadworks has been confirmed to tie in with the availability of the hospital site.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health confirmed in reply to a question from my hon. Friend on 15 February, the North-Western regional health authority is currently reviewing its capital programme and I can appreciate his concern that schemes to provide facilities to replace these at Reedyford might slip to the extent that they will not be completed before Reedyford is forced to close. The regional health authority is reviewing the capital programme to eliminate the present overprogramming which makes the existing strategy unrealistic. Responsibility for the capital programme and for determining priorities within it rests with the North-Western regional health authority and the outcome of its deliberations will not be known until the summer.

In the meantime it is not possible to give an assurance that any scheme in the programme will maintain its place —a situation which is of concern to a large number of districts and, with the schemes in Burnley, to my hon. Friend. I must take care not to appear to pre-empt the RHA's decision, but I understand that there are two important features of the replacement of the Reedyford facilities to which it thinks it important to give due weight. The first is that the regional health authority is entitled to 711 compensation from Lancashire county council for the loss of Reedyford, which must be spent only on replacement facilities. The compensation becomes due only as and when the replacements are provided. Secondly, the Lancashire county council is fully aware of the regional health authority's concern lest replacement facilities are not ready in time, and it has adopted a most helpful attitude.

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is impossible at this time to give any guarantee that Reedyford replacement schemes will maintain their place in the North-Western regional health authority's capital programme. All I can do is to assure him that from the inquiries I have made all concerned are aware of the consequences of any slippage of the replacement schemes at Burnley general, and that these will have priority over the scheme for a community hospital at Nelson, which is 712 mainly planned to provide additional facilities. Meanwhile —I can reassure my hon. Friend here—planning on all schemes continues, so that the review of the capital programme will not itself contribute to delays.

I am very sorry that I cannot give a categorical answer to my hon. Friend on the timing of the replacement of the Reedyford facilities, but I hope that what I have said tonight will give him some reassurance that the RHA is fully conscious of the need to make that replacement in due time, and that the other agencies involved are co-operating with it to that end. I can say firmly that there is no doubt about the commitment to replacing the facilities that will be lost when Reedyford hospital closes, and I hope that he will be reassured by that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.