§ 3.8 p.m.
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of reference of the working party set up to re-examine the position of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, there are no formal terms of reference. What my right honourable friend is seeking to achieve is to get interested parties round the table in full, frank and friendly discussions. Noble Lords may know that my right honourable friend said yesterday in another place (and I quote from col. 820 of Hansard):
I have therefore invited the health authorities, representatives of the staff of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and other interested parties to come together under the chairmanship of a senior official of my department to consider detailed proposals for alternative accommodation.".
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, while warmly welcoming the change of attitude adopted by the Department in the past seven days, and further welcoming the remarks of the noble Lord's right honourable friend in another place yesterday, may I ask whether the noble Lord is able to tell the House if the proceedings will take place in public or private?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I do not want to enter into a controversy with the noble Lord, but let me make one point clear; there has been no change of attitude. We have quite recently received confirmation from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital that they are prepared to consider any offer of alternative accommodation, but without commitment. It was when we received this that my right honourable friend took the course that he did. Certainly the discussions will not be in public; they will be in private for reasons which I would have thought were obvious to everybody.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the discussions will include a proposal that a separate hospital should be maintained and that it should not be a question merely of inclusion in a present hospital?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I cannot say that. So far as I know, the only practical proposal which exists at present is the transfer to the Whittington Hospital. However, as I indicated, other proposals are not ruled out.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, could I ask the noble Lord to express to the Minister the difficulties that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital must be working under now, with the people there not knowing what their future will be from one month to another? Discussions will of course be necessary and extremely useful. At the same time, how do you run a hospital if you do not know how long you are going to exist?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, there have been difficulties at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital for some considerable time, by virtue of what needs to be done. The Government have taken the view for a long time that it is not a viable proposition because of the cost of putting it into real working order and the annual cost of maintaining it. We appreciate the difficulties and we ourselves would like to get the situation clarified and finalised at the earliest possible moment. I must, however, repeat what I have said on previous occasions; that is, that my right honourable friend has decided that the hospital on the Euston Road site must be closed.
§ Lord ANNANMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital can receive facilities at the Whittington Hospital which are particularly suitable, in that the Whittington Hospital is part of the teaching complex of hospitals in the North-East London region? Is it not also important that, at a time when the Government are having to reduce the provision for hospitals in London in order that there should be sufficient funds to extend facilities for teaching hospitals in the Provinces, the London teaching hospitals, when their resources from the DHSS are being reduced under the RAWP programme, should have priority when the Government come to consider how total resources for London are to be used?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, that is precisely the position the Government have taken consistently.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, does the noble Lord's new statement mean that there will be no lack of continuity so far as the hospital is concerned and that this hospital will continue until new buildings are found, if new buildings are contemplated?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLYes, my Lords, the Euston Road hospital will continue to provide its existing services while these discussions are taking place.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is an excellent hospital now in a state of disuse at Millbank? Would the possibility of transferring the EGA Hospital to that hospital be entirely ruled out?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I cannot go beyond the point I made some time ago, when I said that the only practical proposal, as I understand it, existing at present is the transfer to the Whittington. That has to be discussed. That is the first matter, and from that will stein consideration of whether or not it will be necessary to look at some other site.