 |
|
|
|
one of only two Merseyside MPs supporting the Liverpool Women's Hospital meanwhile Wes Streeting orders cuts of 50% in ICB spending on staff and services For ten years, the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group, and now the US styled Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (ICB) have been trying to close the country's only stand-alone Maternity and Gynaecology Hospital, on the grounds that Liverpool has too many hospitals!
Worse still this comes at a time when maternity healthcare in this country is gradually becoming as bad as it was before the NHS was borne in 1948, with increasing numbers of baby and mother's mortality during birth. All the scandals that are being uncovered of bad maternity healthcare leading to preventable and avoidable deaths of babies and mothers, is occurring in general hospitals and NOT in Liverpool Women's Hospital. During that ten year period of a closure campaign, reports after reports, including a CQC Report has NEVER criticised the site of the Liverpool Women's Hospital for mother's and babies health risks and deaths.
Here we report on the event held last Friday, 13th March 2025:
This event hosted the Save Liverpool Women's Hospital Campaign group in the form of a debate, to gauge the opinion of those attending regarding the Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board's intention to continue the process which could result in dispersing maternity and gynaecological services across the city’s already overstretched hospitals. Whilst the Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board were once again invited to attend tonight's meeting, they once again declined to engage the public prior to the implementation of their decision at the last ICB Board meeting; to continue the timetable to disperse all Maternity and Gynaecological services across the city's other already over-stretched hospitals. The first speaker tonight was Felicity Dowling who did her best to put forward the ICB's argument as to why they intended to close the Liverpool Women's Hospital, explaining their evidence as to their clinical decision to spread the maternity services across Liverpool's hospitals, or even as far as sending women to Manchester hospitals for them to give birth there! Welcoming those attending, Ian said that the purpose of the evening and future Citizens Assemblies is to inform and debate the issues of concern to local people in order to ensure there is no information gap, because where there is, it tends to get filled by people with 'bad actors' who have no interest in the welfare and concerns of the people of this City. He explained the format of the meeting and said that he wanted to hear from everyone attending and to be able to understand first-hand, their opinions on the issue of the evening which is the threat of the closure to the Liverpool Women's Hospital. He praised the campaign work being done by those involved for the last ten years in the Save Liverpool Women's Hospital Campaign, and introduced the two speakers from the campaign that were presenting the debate. At the end of which there will be a paper vote on the closure plans of the Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board.
The first speaker in the debate was Felicity Dowling, one of the founder members of the Save Liverpool Women's Hospital Campaign launched some ten years ago, such is the length of time that the previous local NHS authorities have been trying to close the country's only stand-alone Maternity and Gynaecology Hospital dedicated specifically to women's maternity and gynaecological health. She did her best to, in the absence of the invited ICB, to put across their case which threatens the closure of the LWH. In doing so, she referred specifically to the ICB's report entitled 'Case For Change', and advised those attending that links to it are on the campaign's website, and anyone in attendance should see her after the debate for a hard copy of the report she would send them.
Felicity explained that there are several points concerning patient safety that the board are using as a problem with the Crown Street Site, which could form the basis of a decision to migrate all of the women's health and maternity services from the Crown Street site, to other Merseyside hospitals that are already stretched in terms of clinical staff levels and are not fully equipped to provide Gynaecological and birthing care to not only Merseyside women, but also to those in Northern Ireland and the Isle Of Man and North Wales as is required now. This is because of the expertise that exists within the LWH and the pioneering methods developed and employed at the hospital and adopted by other hospitals such as Glasgow's main hospital. Despite this, the ICB papers concerning the reason for closure, does not in fact state just where the clinical staff and specialist nurses and doctors will be located, along with their equipment.
She was unable though, to present the 'Case For Change' document's major tenant that the hospital has recruitment and retention of clinical and expert staff problems and that no one wants to work there; without correcting that false information. Similarly with regard to the claims that the hospital is unsafe for patients and for birthing mother's. Transfers to other hospitals within the NHS as a whole are not unusual. There are on average 12 transfers a year from LWH to Intensive Care, usually the Royal.
Lesley Mahmood, also a founder member of the SLWH Campaign, was up next in the easier role of putting forward the campaign against closure of the Liverpool Women's Hospital, case. Indeed, she commented how strange it felt to hear Felicity try to act as a member of the ICB and putting their case. She paid tribute to a former NHS worker, Sheila Altés who was in effect; a whistle blower. Sheila is now retired but lost her job when she campaigned with the group Keep Our NHS Public in order to save the local clinical practice she worked at from being taken over by a private sector company. Sheila is the lead author of the SLWH Campaign's response document, which Leslie held up proudly. There is a direct link to the campaign's website in the cover of the report which appears further down this page. Giving a brief history of the fight to save maternity and gynaecology services in not just Liverpool, but also that of the wider community of Cheshire and Merseyside, North Wales, the Isle of Man and the North West. The women’s is one of 3 maternal medicine centres in the North West. This requires expertise to be shared and close working between hospitals. This requires expertise to be shared, and close working between Manx Health, NHS N. Ireland; and the NHS in England.
Lesley discussed the ICB's case and took apart some of their most contentious claims which were indeed disingenuous and statistical manipulations used to fit their case, and not the evidence forming the case. Maternity services and Women's healthcare in general is in the worst state it has been since the introduction of the NHS in 1948, she explained, saying that it was not 'handed down from above' but was heavily fought for because of the terrible state of healthcare in the UK where GPs had to be paid by patients in order to receive healthcare, not to mention cost of medicines and of hospital stays. It was exactly like the US system of putting profit before patient health and that if you have not got the funds to pay immediately for visit to doctors, medication and hospital stays; you were left to suffer the full consequences of untreated ill-health. Lesley referred to an article from a campaigner in Manchester about campaigning women in the 1920s & 1930s , who had to endure terrible pain and conditions during childbirth, with terrible outcomes as a result and of ill-health. They had no contraception and no control over their bodies and their fertility, Within 2 years of the NHS being formed, the number of infant deaths went down, still births went down.
She also made it clear that the research they do as a group, and the statistics they gather are based on the local ICB and the NHS nationally. They also use expert opinions from those who actually know about maternity services.
In other words, do what we say or we will take maternity care services way from the city! Leslie concluded, by reading out a letter from a retired mid-wife and midwife lecturer who had worked at the Crown Street site and makes it perfectly clear that the closure and the dispersal of maternity services in Liverpool is an exercise in healthcare denial and that there has NEVER been a report from the Care Quality Commission or any other healthcare body suggesting that the Crown Street site is a danger to patients. This is in broad comparison to hospital based maternity services which have been involved in scandalous cases of maltreatment, misogyny and racism within the NHS maternity and gynaecological healthcare. There is no case to answer and the claims of the ICB that Liverpool Women's Hospital is a danger to patients are indeed false, disingenuous and contemptible in the eyes of many people associated with the hospital, previous patients, and the local community of Liverpool 8.
With the blind following of Government dictate regarding cuts to maternity services across the country, and to deny healthcare in line with the US healthcare system and profiteering from ill health. Following the debate itself, there was a very lively question and NOT COMMISSION SOME MATERNITY AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR THE WHOLE OF LIVERPOOL in the event public opinion is against them and their plans that could lead to the closing of the Liverpool Women's Hospital. Views expressed were very critical of the evidence and sceptical of the veracity of it as presented in the ICB's document ' The Case For Change'; saying that it is clearly a situation where the facts have been distorted in order to fit in with a decision already made, as opposed to a document of evidence and facts that are then analysed and a decision then made based upon the evidence gathered. Further, as the document from the ICB, says that the Crown Street site will 'not stop providing NHS services'. What is the detail? Given that Wes Streeting Secretary of State for Health, and Social Care, has explicitly said he is holding the door 'wide open' to private healthcare companies being involved in the running of, and provision of NHS healthcare treatments and services; could the private sector take over some or all of the building? An important contribution to the debate came from Eileen Turnbull, who raised the details of a 2016 'draft' report called Healthy Liverpool written by the Liverpool Care Commissioning Group. It was only made public later. The conclusion was that even though those involved in the study, supported the aims of the doctors involved producing the report, the public DID NOT WANT the Crown Street site to close and wanted the women's hospital on that site to remain there, and to be further developed. She quote from the report which stated, the people expressed there concern as to the reasons for the suggested closure, and that it was in order to provide services only to the most urgent and complicated cases and allow other cases to linger on with delayed or denied treatment. Move to 2025, and that is precisely hat is happening across the NHS in England as a result of Wes Streeting's plans for the elective care backlog, using local SURGICAL HUBS, WHICH THEMSELVES do NOT have emergency services within their buildings! The video above right is of her contribution to the debate. With the ICB being in financial jeopardy, as are most of the 42 ICBs in England, could the building at Crown St be handed to the private sector? It was interesting that one of the contributors at tonight's meeting is a solicitor who is working with a doctor-led campaign group fighting NHS privatisation - EveryDoctor - and gave an interesting comment in support of the Save Liverpool Women's Hospital. Regular readers of this website, will recall having read about that organisation and taken note of their logo, along with that of other organisations involved with several campaign groups, including Keep Our NHS Public,Defend Our NHS, and Keep Our NHS Public; to name but a few. (see their logos and links on the home page of this website) Below, you can watch the Q&A sessions which took place immediately prior to the vote on the principles of the ICB Case For Change: 
The Debate Result Following the debate, a paper vote took place amongst those attending, to determine the feeling about the threat by the ICB to the Crown St site and to remove some services from Liverpool. As the ICB commissions these services, it is they who would be responsible for the loss of any services to Liverpool, clearly a threat if the people of Liverpool do not accept the ICB plans to move or disperse these services to other hospitals. In the end the result of the vote was clear - a unanimous vote against the ICB's proposal with one abstention. The Trade Unions on Merseyside Position There is a job of work to be done in the health trade unions. Many staff want to believe management reassurances that everything will improve if only services are moved. Constant messaging and documents with one-sided or questionable evidence are not challenged. The Staff at the Royal (which did need a new build) were promised a wonderful new hospital under PFI (Private Finance Initiative) and with 300 fewer beds. Health campaigners at the time forewarned of the problems and were dismissed by the decision makers, some of whom are involved with the ICB today. Many of the staff and public realise over 5 years on PFI was a disaster and the new building is inadequate.
Source: Unionsafety / Save Liverpool Women's Hospital Campaign |
 |
Ian Byrne MP, Liverpool West Derby, introduced the evening's event, the format and speakers, as one in his series of Citizen's Assemblies being held within the constituency, in order to directly involve the public in the issues of importance to them. This way, he said, he can assure that he is representing the views and opinions of his constituents.
Felicity also went into detail of the main areas of concern that lead the 'Change' document, with the evidence in the papers to support the Board's decision to close the Crown Street site. Amazingly, the papers state that there is no intention of closing the site itself and that the NHS will remain providing healthcare services from the purpose-built 29 year old building that has seen major developments and additional services including a new NICU =neonatal intensive care unit, a diagnostic centre, new gynae suite, a medical emergency team.
Lesley also referred to the fact that the UK is now far down in the tables of leading healthcare countries, when we used to be near the very top. She pointed out that the lack of concern for maternity services from ICBs across England has led to several scandals and the worsening of child and maternity care in the UK.
She did so quoting from Sheila's document, holding it up as a matter of principle and pride in the arguments and evidence against the ICB's ill-thought out 'Case For Change' and the true reason for wanting to close the Crown Street site - financial debt, a hidden agenda of transferring of NHS services and buildings to the private sector. 
