HAVING read the Children and Families First report from the Children and Young People's Network, Bury appears to be significant for having a low infant mortality rate, and high access to a van or car which, in terms of proposed changes for Fairfield, means Bury is not deprived enough to warrant localised child and maternity health services.

The stated aims and objectives of the report are to modernise and improve health care services, including delivering as much health care at home, or as close to home, as possible. Proposed changes to paediatric services don't quite marry with the "closer to home" objective.

Buried in page 8 of the report, recommended reading for anyone, is the idea that plans to concentrate neonatal intensive care services will necessitate an enhancement of obstetric services at those sites. Basically, obstetricians will move to cover "high-risk" births at centralised "centres of excellence", for no paediatric cover directly leads to no obstetric cover. The reality is that no "high risk" and, by definition, vulnerable women will have local childbirth provision if these proposals succeed.

And as the boundaries between "high risk" and "normal" are constantly redefined, what safeguards will the rest of Bury's expectant mothers have for ensuring they have access to a safe, local delivery service?

Let's not kid ourselves. In practice, these proposals are not about enhanced patient care but increased centralisation to reduce costs, otherwise we would by now have been treated to lots of research-based evidence about the benefits of closing special care and maternity units guaranteed to put all our minds at rest. So far, I've seen none.

DAWN ROBINSON-WALSH