AT a recent meeting with the hospital chief executive, John Rostill, I heard that he has had no indication from local people that they wish the Wyre Forest Birth Centre to re-open!

This amazed me because I believe that fit mothers-to-be deserve the choice of a local birth centre for normal births.

We will not get this back if we do not make it clear how badly it is needed because the easiest solution would be to concentrate deliveries at Worcester.

If we wish it to re-open after implementation of the inquiry's recommendations we must make this clear.

Please write to: -

Patients' Forum, PO Box 4150, Kidderminster DY10 3WW or leave a message on my answer phone (01562 753333) with your name and address and a statement of your wishes for the future of our birth centre.

Regarding the future of our hospital buildings I learnt that A and C blocks are required for use in addition to B and E blocks which house the treatment centre.

A decision about re-siting some departments and hence the needs of other blocks will be reached by January.

At the moment it is likely that the old A & E block, the tower block and the previous mortuary will be taken out of use.

I reminded Mr Rostill about the importance of alternative accommodation for the Diabetes Centre at present using the adapted mortuary building.

I have raised objections to the changes in cardiac surgery provision with the chief executive of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and with Mr Rostill.

I emphasised how difficult the journey to Coventry would be for many local people.

It will be serious if we lose the excellent connections built up over years between our cardiologists and the Birmingham surgeons who provide a local service for booking and follow-up clinics.

There has been widespread concern that the Mental Capacity Bill legalises euthanasia by omission.

This was not the Government's intention because the aim of the Bill is to grant incapacitated people the same rights as other members of society.

In the debate on December 14, an amendment which I supported was tabled to clarify that the new Bill has no effect on the law relating to euthanasia. This was lost in a vote but during the debate, ineptly handled by the Government, it became clear that the Lord Chancellor had already agreed for such an amendment to be passed in the Lords and then returned to the Commons where it would be accepted after its previous rejection!

What a way to decide matters of conscience!

Although I was disappointed not to speak in the debate I told the Prime Minister during Questions that the Government's handling of the debate had been lamentable and that it was weak and wrong for the House of Commons to defer to the House of Lords a decision that it should have made itself.