My Lords, I speak on this Bill on th e grounds that one of the projects concerned is the removal of the N&N Hospital from its current site in the middle of Norwich to a greenfield site at Colney. That goes against what was said by the Minister of state in the Minister's department in another place when he referred to a project in Swindon. In referring to the health service and the project in general he used the words:
"It is clearly important that such a major proposal secures the confidence of the local people. As far as possible, open details should be made available to people in the area about the nature of the proposal. It is not the consortium's national health service; it is not even the trust's national health service; and it is not mine. It is the people's national health service, and we should never forget that" - [Official Report, Commons 15/5/97; col 272.]
The people of Norwich are beginning to think that somebody has forgotten. This point is not aimed generally at the current government, but at all those who have been involved in the process.
Tonight, at 7.30pm, at a meeting of Norwich City Council a motion will be tabled which condemns the siting of the new hospital. It will be backed by the controlling Labour group on the council, with full backing of the Liberal Democrat opposition. There are no Tory members on the council. The motion is:
"To request an urgent review by the new Government of all decisions made with regard to new hospital provision in the Norwich area. This review to be held in public and 'transparent' in all details, including finance. The review to consider environmental impact, sustainability and access issues as well as economic impact".
At one point a petition containing 18,000 names was raised in a few days. That is approximately 10 percent of the population of Norwich. That petition was presented to the local health authority. In those circumstances something must have gone very seriously wrong. Going back over 10 years, the conclusion in effect - and it has been mentioned by many people in this debate already - is that it takes a long time to get new capital projects built. Indeed, the noble Lord Marsh, struck that nail squarely on the head by saying that no one liked shelling out for such projects. Over 10 years reviews have been carried out, and a split site was favoured, moving from one city-centre site to the new site just outside Norwich.
After a series of changes, in 1992 it was agreed that everything should be moved without public debate and a public review process. It was agreed that there should be a new, extremely large hospital on a greenfield site outside the city centre. However, the site and the hospital have now "shrunk", and dramatically so. Not only are we to lose two hospitals in Norwich - but they are to be replaced by a hospital with 200 fewer beds.
There has not been any public consultation. Whenever changes have been made, it has been said that there should be a split site. The current site of the N&N is slap in the centre of the city. Indeed, it is just under half a mile from the main bus station in Norwich. Anyone who looks at a map of Norfolk will see that Norwich appears to be at the centre of a spider's web of roads. Norwich has a very good public access and very good public transport. It is said that one of the reasons for siting the hospital outside the city is that that will allow far better car parking facilities.
Salt has been rubbed into the wound of public disquiet in the area becuse it has recently been proposed that a new centre on the existing site could be developed at considerably lower cost - at anything up to £100 million less - and that underground parking could be provided. The Member of Parliament for Norwich South (Charles Clark), pursued the issue throughout the election campaign and was funally told that the compensation that would be required (giving the existing legal commitments with regard to the site) would be so great that it might outweigh even those savings. I have been confirmed in my original opinion that this Bill merely removes the last legal ojection to acquiring the finance and the vires.
People are very bitter. I have run through the argument to try to amplify the fact that people of the area do not feel that they have been consulted. There is tremendous resentment in the area. It has been estimated that about one third of the population of the county lives within a 10 mile radius of the city centre. It has been estimated that nine out of 10 people now have a hospital within easy reach. However, the proposal is for a new greenfield site that will require new roads and new building. That will take economic activity away from the city centre, which at the moment is scarred by unused potential building plots.
Surely the Government should take advantage of this opportunity to state whether they intend to establish a process whereby any major change to a PFI project must be subject to at least some form of public debate. Without that, there will be a series of disgruntled people, feeling that they have been badly treated and who are often ignorant of the decisions that were taken. Regardless of the medical benefits, what has happened in this case has left a very bad taste in the mouths of the people of the city of Norwich. They feel that local opinion and local democracy have been totally ignored.
| Top of Page | Home Page | Mail KOHIN | Index | The Takeheart Health Check |