Letters 1998

KOHIN

Keep Our Hospital in Norwich

Letters - what people write to the papers - 1998

1996     1997     1998     1999

Chief Executive of the CHC Responds

As the chief officer of the Norwich District Commumity Health Council, who has no say in the decisions of the CHC, and whose role it is to carry out its instructions, I was saddened to read the somewhat vitriolic letter from Amanda Williams concerning the actions of Mike Tomlinson, the chairman of the CHC.
Firstly, it must be understood that the chairman does not act independently of the members of the Community Health Council, and the issue of the provision of the new hospital, and its siting, has been debated several times by the full CHC and on each occasion has been supported without dissent.
Following an approach last October to each member of the CHC by the Keep Our Hospital in Norwich campaign, the matter was raised again but members voted, without dissent, not to undertake any further discussion.
Secondly, Ms Williams' reference to the views of 20,000 people must be weighed against all the 500,000 people represented by the Community Health Council within the district of Norwich Health Authority, most of whom live outside Norwich and whose interests also have to be considered.
It must not be forgotten that the Secretary of State has said that if the hospital is not built at Colney, there will be no hospital.
Under those circumstances, surely there's no contest.
It seems to me that those who are opposed to the new hospital think that this is the only matter with which members of the Community Health Council are concerned.
The Community Health Council has a very broad remit.
It is consulted on many issues, and its efforts over the years have brought about changes and resulted in better health services for the people of Norwich and district.
Mike Tomlinson's personal contribution to these achievements has been immense, and I know these sentiments would be echoed by those Community Health Council members who, by virtue of long membership, are fully aware of just how much he has done for the benefit of local people.
Maria Temple
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 6th January 1998

The Community Health Council

It is my understanding that the Community Health Councils were set up in order to represent the consumer in the NHS.
There is a considerable amount of evidence that the proposal to site our new hospital in the country outside the city boundary is not popular.
The Norwich District Community Health Council has consistently advised the Health Authority and the Government that the reverse is true.
The CHC has conducted no enquiry of its own into the views of those whom it represents (but who have had no say in their appointment). How can they possibly know what people think? In a democracy they are allowed their own personal opinions but should not represent them as those of the population.
Mrs Temple (EEN 6/1/98) belittles the views of over 20,000 people who have expressed their opposition in writing. This is 5% of the population distributed evenly between city and county. Can she produce 20,000 signatures in favour of the move?
Mr Tomlinson opened the Bawburgh fete in the summer. He was asked how many people had written to object to the move and he replied "30,000". He was then asked how many people had written in support and he said "None".
Dr Geoff Clayton
Colney
7th January 1998

Mrs Williams Replies

Maria Temple takes me to task for criticising Mike Tomlinson and the Community Health Council over the issue of the Colney Hospital.
Ms Temple seems to think that opposition to Colney comes only from city residents, but that is untrue; opposition is just as strong in the county.
I know that the Secretary of State has said that it is Colney or nothing, but there is plenty of recent evidence of politicians changing direction and contradicting what they have stated earlier.
Ms Temple reminds us that 500,000 people are represented by the Community Health Council.
I am eager to Know how the CHC consulted all these people on the issue of the hospital, before it decided to give its unqualified support to Colney.
How many public meetings were held, how were they publicised, how many forms were distributed to enable people to comment and how many forms were returned?
How were the forms worded; did they imply there was no alternative to Colney, and did they mention the closure of the N&N?
How was the analysis of the comments on the forms carried out and were the findings made public?
How did the members of the CHC use the results of the consultation in their debates on this matter?
Unless we receive satisfactory answers to these questions I shall find it hard to believe the CHC has done its job properly.
Amanda Williams
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 14th January 1998

Labour Fails to 'Deliver the Goods'

Having just heard that Tony Blair has now given the go-ahead for the £213,000,000 PFI hospital at Colney, I then immediately heard him using this news item on Breakfast with Frost, trying to make political capital from it, as proof of New Labour's promise to "deliver the goods" by keeping to its pre-election manifesto.
No credit can be taken by him for this as it was a Conservative initiative in the first place.
Is he so unaware of local wishes?
The two Labour candidates who were elected in Norwich, Dr Ian Gibson and Mr Charles Clarke, both clearly publicly stated proir to their election that they would see that the overwhelming request for a complete and open review took place.
This was flatly refused by the new Government.
There were some 30,000 signatures against the new hospital at Colney as compared with none for it.
These signatures were lodged with South Norfolk planning department before the planning permission was given and they were completely ignored.
So much for perfidious British politics.
Elizabeth Wallace
Colton
Eastern Evening News 16th January 1998

Disillusioned

What a state of disillusionment this Government produces.
Virtually every national policy is a copy version of the Conservative ones we voted to remove.
Now, locally, we have the final awful decision to build the new hospital outside the city centre.
I do not wish to restate the case for keeping the hospital where it is but only to say, contrary to promises made, there has been no true involvement of "the people" in this decision.
The only criteria used seems to be that of New Labour - Private Initiative and Profit against Public Concern.
Peter Cooper
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 16th January 1998

Just Who Briefed You Mr Blair?

From Japan in an interview with David Frost we heard the Prime Minister Tony Blair stating that by approving the £214 million hospital at Colney, he has fulfilled an election promise to the people of Norfolk & Norwich.
Where has the Prime Minister been? Who has been briefing him?
No political capital can be made from this massive project built with private finance.
This proposed PFI hospital being a Conservative initiative, and followed through without a review asked for by the majority of Norfolk & Norwich people.
Financial arangements between Octagon and the NHS Trust have been negotiated behind closed doors, and are still not known to pro Colney supporters or the general public.
MPs knew of the massive opposition to moving the Norfolk & Norwich to an out of town site, did they not brief the Prime Minister?
It belies belief that the minority supporters of Colney can blindly support a scheme without the full facts, which are described as being confidential and highly sensitive.
The Prime Minister has said after being elected "We are the servants and the people are the masters" and "What we intend to do is listen to the people".
These pronouncements now take on a distinctly hollow ring.
June Farrow
Bawburgh
Eastern Evening News 20th January 1998

Intriguing Rise in Cost

A question about the hospital at Colney.
Why, since signing the contract, has the cost risen to £214 million when all through the discussions and arguments the cost was under £200 million. Perhaps Mr Stamp could comment.
I agree with Denise Carlo when she says Labour has put high finance before the needs of the local community. But we shouldn't be surprised as New Labour is really Conservative under a new name.
Perhaps if our two MPs hadn't behaved like wimps when facing the health minister after the election the St Stephen's site might have been saved.
If only there had been as tough a Government as they were in opposition.
Also will Mr Stamp explain where the 300 patients who would have been in the old hospital will go as the new hospital has 300 fewer beds.
I hope he doesn't think patients will be looked after in the community, as social services are making more cuts than a surgeon in an operating theatre.
A Agate
Norwich Eastern Evening News 21st January 1998

Hospital Decision Inquiry is Vital

The outrageous manner in which Tony Blair announced completion of the Colney hospital deal from Japan is characteristic of the remote, secretive, top-down manner in which this hospital has been bulldozed through.
This is a deeply unpopular decision, the feelings over which will reverberate throughout the four year construction period of Colney Hospital and closure of the N&N, taking us into the next general election.
Although Colney was promoted under the Conservatives, it is the Labour Government who bears ultimate responsibility for losing the N&N from the city centre. Shadow Health Minister, Chris Smith, promised to review Colney in view of public concern. Once elected, Labour claimed that breach of contract signed under the Conservatives would involve compensation payments of tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds. This explanation was unconvincing especially as the final contract was not signed until 9th January. Now the Labour Government is claimimg success in securing funds for the largest privately funded NHS hospital project. Labour Mimisters never had any intention of reviewing Colney and the public was duped.
We learn from the announcement that Colney will cost an extra £20 million. The Trust maintains this additional sum will not cost the NHS a penny more. Developers are not known for their generosity and Octagon Healthcare will want to recover its full costs in some form. Profit generating retail development at the hospital or additional efficiency savings through job cuts are not unlikely.
Locally, we must seek to ensure that a project with far reaching consequences for the public interest yet so lacking in public support never happens again. Decisions on the location of the new hospital were taken behind close doors by hospital authorities and supporting parties. Charles Clarke MP has described the consultation process into the hospital location as "scandalous". Public consultation was little more than a rubber stamping exercise. At the very least, an independent inquiry into how the decision was reached on the Colney location is vital, if trust in local health and planning bodies is ever to be restored.
Denise Carlo
Norwich Eastern Daily Press 22nd January 1998

Residents of Norwich Blinkered and Uncaring

As I heard about the new Norfolk & Norwich Hospital at Colney and then about the opponents of the scheme, I must admit to some incredulity.
Are some of the residents of Norwich so blinkered and uncaring that they are only self-centredly concerned about their own welfare? Do they actually realise that there are other people living in Norfolk besides them who use this facility?
Do they even realise there is more to Norfolk than just Norwich?
Do they not realise that such a facility would be welcomed in any other city in the country? Maybe the Government should have a rethink and, understanding how ungrateful some of the Norwich people are, spend the money on expanding the already superbly managed hospital at Kings Lynn (also part of Norfolk), or even build it three and a half miles outside Fakenham town centre - I think I can guarantee no one in Fakenham would complain about that distance to such a facility.
For us non-Norwich Norfolk residents the new facility will be easier to get to, easier to park at and, of course, it will also be a superb complex in the medical sense.
I heard one person saying how inconvenient it would be to have to travel three and a half miles to the hospital - he was obviously unaware that some of us have to travel 20 or more miles to it, then have to battle through the horrendous Norwich traffic only to find nowhere to park.
We are always hearing about how the Norwich residents want traffic kept out of the city centre, well this can only help that aspiration when we out-of-towners won't have to drive in to the hospital.
Let's hear from some of the silent majority of supporters who may like to express gratitude for a facility that will serve them well into the next century.
John Charman
Fakenham
Eastern Daily Press 19th January 1998

Long & Costly trips to New Hospital

Geoffrey Drew has completely missed the point.
One of the main reasons for keeping the hospital in Norwich is because it would be accessible to all people who do live outside the city.
Almost everybody in Norfolk can catch a bus, train or coach into Norwich but what they don't want, particularly if they are not well or are having to make regular visits to the hospital, is to have to wait around Norwich for a connecting bus to Colney.
We have already been advised that there will not be any special fares to the site because existing rates to the UEA so for many people without a car, visiting the new hospital is going to be a very expensive exercise.
With the punitive measures this Government has threatened to introduce to force a reduction in the use of cars, anyone living outside Norwich is in for a long and costly journey.
Once again those hardest hit will be the elderly and unemployed. What I would ask those who have pushed so hard for this hospital and who keep insisting they know best is - why have I not met any "ordinary" people who are in favour of it?
The opinion of the people of Norfolk has not been canvassed because those who stand to gain know they would get a resounding "NO".
Felicity Holden
Costessey
Eastern Daily Press 23rd January 1998

Hospital Opportunity Missed

So we are having "private funding" for this grand new hospital. Does this mean some magnanimous person (or persons) is giving this large sum? Or will Norfolk & Norwich taxpayers have to fork out a massive tax to pay the interest?
We had the potential space by our hospital for glorious new departments. This would have meant just generous compensation for a few properties nearby - we should all have been happier. And after four years, how many extra millions?
How very easy to spend other people's money, and have little care for friends without a car to visit patients.
Emma Bingham
Costessey
Eastern Daily Press 24th January 1998

Floral Protest Made its Point

What a magnificent display of flowers there were outside the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital recently.
I am sure many more would have been there had this tribute to our city's hospital been given more publicity.
May I take this opportunity to thank those who have worked so tirelessly on our behalf to try to retain our hospital in Norwich.
The many hours put into the cause, funded from public donations and their own money shows what a credit to the community these people are.
The voices of the people have been ignored by influential bureaucrats.
Let us never forget we were duped by the politicians at the last election.
Jean Hart
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 26th January 1998
Eastern Daily Press 22nd January 1998

Saddened

I was saddened to read this week that building work has started on the unpopular Colney Hospital, which will lead to the closure of the Norfolk & Norwich and the West Norwich Hospitals.
I would like to thank Denise Carlo and the other organisers of Keep Our Hospital in Norwich campaign for their hard work in opposing this extremely unpopular scheme.
It is a pity that the Labour Government, as usual following meekly behind their Conservative predecessors, chose to turn a deaf ear to public opinion in allowing the new hospital to be built.
Hopefully, the people of Norwich will remember how their elected "representatives" let them down when, in a few years time, Norwich becomes a city without a hospital and the beautiful Yare Valley becomes filled with even more unnecessary development.
Dr Jeremy Bartlett
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 26th January 1998

The Most Undemocratic Process I Have Ever Seen

I write after seeing the latest petty saga concerning the flowers placed outside the N&N Hospital and your involvement along with the other people who in my opinion rightly opposed the siting and building of the hospital.
This long running and disgraceful dispute should not have been allowed to happen in the first instance.
Adding millions to its cost at the taxpayers expense. It will certainly have to be paid for by the patients. Why have a renting system? And have a team to visit the USA for advice. We know how to run hospitals
The outgoing MP Patrick Thompson did nothing only to object to the siting of the new hospital. My ex Broadland Council House was sold to a newly formed Housing Associtaion in one of the most undemocratic processes I have ever seen. The deciding of this new hospital was the same. Cut and dried from the outset. The figures stated by those in favour were nothing to go by. Had there been a proper head count or referendum the result would have been different
Holding a gun to one's head such as was the case in the decision making. By claiming the backers would withdraw and mean no hospital was again yet another example of the unfairness. I make no bones concerning my political preference, having worked for the East Anglian Regional Hospital Board before the change over to the NHS (1947-1948).
I honestly believe many problems will arise in the long term.
Why so much money has still continued to be spent on the N&N and West Norwich. On the foyer or entrance and waiting areas etc. is scandalous.
No account in the increase expected by the plans of the Norfolk County Structure planning has been consistent which should mean more beds not less.
As a Labour supporter I was disappointed in the handling of this situation by the new Government administration who in objecting for years on privatisation only made feeble objections. I know it was difficult after most of the plans etc. had been made by a different Government. Money again came into it in spite of the cost factor for a further in depth report would more than compensate for this and savings in the long run.
Sorry for such a lengthy letter but it is difficult to express one's opinion or views in any other way.
B.A.Barber
Sprowston
20th January 1998

The Mother & Child Statue

I too am an awkward b****, so to help you my suggestions to you are.
Get a 1900-1920 map of the Earlham Colney area. From Christchurch Road "built 1930" was a farm from which a bridle way, footpath and cattle track ran to the lane from which you had to cross over from the parkside cottages to this lane which led you down to the farm and at the bottom was a ford to fill up with water, water cattle, cool farm wheels and cross the Yare to Colney.
On the left of Earlham Road is now trees and a grass verge 20 - 30 feet wide. It doesn't take a lot of brains to see how you are going to get the buses to Colney does it?
So if you enlist Greenpeace, "Trees", Bridle & Footpaths and Protect Old England Society you could field a very costly army and be really b****y awkward.
Would you enlist the Norwich Society as the bronze statue of Mother and Child taken from the Ipswich/Newmarket Road split and placed in the N&N grounds doesn't go walkies. Where has the fund for this gone?
I am 90 so I can only just write this.
I trust these lines can be a help. I know that used rightly can lead to very, very costly questions and delays.
Lots of luck in your valiant fight.
RWK
Norfolk Regiment
Received 26th January 1998

Anxieties as Hospital Goes Ahead

Now that the new hospital at Colney and the closure of the Norfolk & Norwich are irrevocable, may I ask for the hospitality of your columns again?
We must be glad that we are to get a new hospital but there are disappointments and anxieties.
Some disappointments are:
That it is to be built on a green field in the country and not in the city centre.
That our MPs did not see fit to keep their pre-election pledges.
That John Gummer chose to sit on his hands rather than stand by his conviction that the proper place for a hospital is in the city centre.
That our Community Health Council did not consult with those whom it represents before throwing its weight behind Colney.
That the views of a large proportion of the population have been belittled and ignored.
Some anxieties are:
That access will continue to be a major problem.
That pollution by traffic, concrete and ashpalt will be greater than forecast. We are all supposed to rely on private cars less and less, not more and more.
That the cost will escalate out of control. We read of a 10 percent increase before the first sod has been turned. It is said that it will not cost anyone a penny extra. Is there such a thing as a free lunch after all?
That further, largely commercial, opportunistic and inappropriate development will be attracted to the area.
That the city centre will be seriously blighted.
The future?
Charles Clarke has described the consultation process as having been "scandalous".
Scandals in public administration have to be inquired into.
Who better to lead such an inquiry as Charles Clarke himself?
That the move is deeply unpopular among a large proportion of the population cannot be denied.
It is unlikely that a similar decision affecting such a well loved and venerable institution will have to be made again for many years.
Next time perhaps more thought will be given to consulting the ordinary citizen.
After all it was built by public subscription and it is still our hospital.
Geoff Clayton
Colney
Eastern Evening News 27th January 1998

Appalled

Richard Drew suggests that the protestors who placed wreaths at the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital might only represent a minority view.
I am convinced he is mistaken, since the very many I have questioned not one so far has expressed approval of the plan. Indeed most people seem appalled by its implications.
Ann Kar
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 28th January 1998

People Are Being Conned

"If full disclosure could result in PFI deals falling through or becoming more expensive, what does that really tell us about the situation we are in? It says that people are being conned into believing they're getting something for nothing".
David Collison
Dundee University
Quoted in The Guardian 28th January 1998

Cure Hospital's Parking Trouble

I have been following the debate on the new Norfolk & Norwich Hospital for some time.. Due to illness, my husband and I are now frequent visitors to the N&N. Service in the renal unit is superb, the staff are magnificent and as it is a fairly new unit, it is a pleasant place to be if one has to spend time in hospital.
What then is the problem? Parking of course.
Parking spaces are at apremium, and unless arriving at the crack of dawn, it is necessary to be prepared to circle around for a long time waiting to seize a space.
Staff also have a problem and I have observed the late-shift workers queuing to get onto their allocated area. This adds to their already long day.
Imagine my disgust when on more than one occasion, whilst waiting to park, I have observed people returning to their cars, laden with shopping.
This was then deposited in the boot and the owner disappeared in the direction of the hospital entrance, presumably to visit a patient or attend a clinic.
On one occasion, a lady and a small child were preparing to park whilst theu visited the pantomime and were working out how long they would be and how much they should put into the machine.
Charges for parking are very reasonable, compared with the nearest public car park, and regettably there are those who think it is a 'public' car park.
Perhaps all these Norwich residents who write in favour of retaining the hospital in the city are concerned at the prospect of losing their cheap car parking.
Initially, my view was to keep our hospital in the city, but my recent experiences have caused me to change my mind. Many have written to say the hospital is the NORFOLK and Norwich and those of us in the rural areas need to be reassured of being able to park on arrival.
To many of us, the journey to Colney will make little difference.
I am confident that the health care received will be of the same standard and, it is hoped, even better by having it all on the same complex.
What is vitally needed is for the nursing staff to be adequately paid for their invaluable care and attention, but that is a separate issue altogether.
Mrs Eileen McIvor
Ditchingham
Eastern Daily Press 2nd February 1998

Selfish Norwich Citizens

Referring to Mrs E.McIver's letter of 2nd February 'Cure hospital's parking trouble' and the correspondence from those complaining about selfish Norwich citizens preferring St Stephens and the hospital serving the County as well as the city because they cannot find parking space at the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital.
These people appear to support the green field Colney site on the basis of the parking difficulties and they seem to have completely overlooked the Campaign for Keeping Our Hospital and others' suggestions that the Nestle site could have been redeveloped as well as the possibility of building underground and multisoried car parks on the present site - either with keeping the present hospital complex or building a new one on the present site. They have not thought clearly about the whole environmental and logistical aspects, basing their preference purely on a large car park.
It seems that 'For the lack of a car park the N&N was lost...'! But this as everyone in the establishment who pushed the Colney site through willy-nilly know, was not the case. The real reasons for the Colney site were for the benefit of a few consultants, certain local government hierarchy and the business elite. The benefit of the general public was not taken into consideration; but certainly, a large privately owned Pay Car Park will be available for those who can pay the hourly fees and who also have a car to reach the hospital.
Elizabeth Wallace
Colton
Eastern Daily Press Submitted 2nd February 1998

Press On With New Hospital

I have read with interest the various letters for and against the new hospital siting at Colney, and want to put forward my family's point of view.
The N&N Hospital, in its present position, gives an excellent service to all its patients. My own son, who has cystic fibrosis, was looked after by staff there when we first came to Norfolk in 1982. But it has been obvious for years that a new hospital has been needed.
I cannot understand the constant complaints that patients and visitors will have to travel further. It is a totally ridiculous reason for keeping the hospital where it is. If you are ill, or a member of your family is ill, it is irrelevant how far you have to travel, if the hospital you are going to is to give the correct care for the person concerned.
My son, who is now 20, has to go backwards and forwards to Papworth Hospital in Cambridgeshire from our home in Norfolk at least once a fortnight - and sometimes once a week. We have no help with the transport costs, and when he is in hospital there we visit every other day, only because it is tiring for us. But the care and attention he gets there is worth all the effort.
I have no doubt that new transport arrangements, ie bus services, will be provided, and those who cannot drive will probably be able to take advantage of those wonderful people who pick up patients in their own cars. Those who are on low incomes get help from the State for their transport.
So I say let's get on with it and build this new hospital so that everyone across the county can benefit. After all, we are not just talking about Norwich residents, but patients from all the areas it covers.
Let's hope also that someone finds a good use for the old building, if only for specialised medicine. It would be great to see this used in such a way and not just boarded up and forgotten about when the move comes.
Mrs J Howard
Ormesby St Margaret
Eastern Daily Press 12th February 1998

Colney Hospital access from Southern Bypass still possible Mr Prescott's announcement of a preference for brown field housing must throw doubt on the proposed hospital access funded by new housing at Cringleford.
From my recent observations of the frequency of road junctions on many busy roads across the country I suggest that it would be wise to re-examine the advice that we cannot have an additional junction on the A47 for the new hospital.
There is a distance of a little over two miles between the Colney and Cringleford exits from the A47. Yet on M1, M3, M4, M25, M27, A1, A3(M) there are many many examples of junctions which are less than ONE mile apart. Indeed on the busy Leicester ring road there are nine junctions in the space of 5 miles! These all make a hospital junction from the A47 a very real possibility.
So, if it is permissible to have frequent junctions on roads which are much busier than the A47, why are we not allowed to have one for the Colney Hospital ? We have been assured that the expected traffic to the hospital will not overload the existing flimsy Watton and Earlham Roads, so it is hardly likely to overload the southern bypass.
Please will someone explain exactly which regulations prevent a hospital junction on A47, and why the same restrictions do not apply to the many junctions I have listed above?
David Cannon
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 23rd February 1998

Methinks, They Doth Protest Too Much!

Norwich can be a strange and bizarre place.
Where else would the prospect of a brand new state of the art hospital provoke such large protests and petitions against it?
Subsequently, the recriminations, zeal and energy that the Keep Our Hospital in Norwich campaigners are investing against those involved in the decision making process verges on a vendetta.
The possibility that the decision was made in good faith and in the best interest of the community of Norwich and Norfolk seems to have escaped the campaign. a £200 million plus scheme was always going to have its detractors and indeed Colney is not a perfect site.
However, in time much of the criticism will prove unfounded.
Just as the city centre retail apocalypse the Castle Mall was allegedly going to cause never materialised, the economic effect of this relocation has been wildly overstated.
As for the greenfield site issue it is not hard to imagine the ancestors of KOHIN protesting against the siting of the current N&N Hospital on what was then a green field site.
KOHIN organised an effective publicity campaign. Though it should be acknowledged that petitions and popular protests do not alone make an argument.
The case for keeping the present location was never made successfully.
It is impossible to imagine that anyone would have suggested Brunswick Road as a site for a hospital, or it receiving planning permission if the N&N was not already there. The fact is that he hospital in its current form was doomed from the point that the need for a new hospital was recognised in the late 1980s. After that any protest was always going to be too little too late.
Now is the time for KOHIN to direct their undoubted conviction and energy to a more positive end.
Richard Cutting
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 20th March 1998

Hospital Site is Top Priority

Mr Cutting, you seem to be rather heavily blinkered, as you have obviously missed the whole point of the protest.
Yes, we do need a new state of the art hospital. It is where the thing is going to be built that has caused the problem. But on the other hand, perhaps you are going to a volunteer worker and ferry patients to and from their homes.
As for Norwich being a strange and bizarre place. Tut! Tut!
PG Smith
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 26th March 1998

Hospital must make profits

The EDP of August 22 reported criticisms of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) sheme for building an NHS hospital in Edinburgh.
"An expensive way to raise money" was the criticism raised by the British Medical Association spokesman.
Describing the plan as a monstrous con trick, the Unison spokesman said "Control of a large aspect of the NHS is being handed over to the private sector."
The NHS has never been a "free srvice". It has been paid for by the people of our nation, but it has always remained a non-profit making service.
In respect of the new Norfolk & Norwich at Colney, the Norfolk & Norwich Health Care NHS Trust produced "fact sheet number one (June 1998)" listing the investors who will require profits from the future running of the hospital.
It also states that exosting sites will be sold off which, presumably, gives the new hospital a virtual monopoly.
The Draft Intermediate Services Strategy for Consultation (July 1998) produced by the East Norfolk Health Authority, under the title Facing the Future, indicates that the public involvement in our area has amounted to a face-to-face survey of 500 people.
Of the 641,905 people in our area who are "owners" of the NHS 99.92 per cent have been ignored.
With November 25 as the date for implementation of the proposed NHS changes there seems little time for "consultation" which could achieve a change of plan.
The question therefore is has the plan been based on a secret agenda designed to reduce government spending and thus meet the convergence criteria for Economic Monetary Union within the European Union?
Yet another decision which has never been put to the people of our nation.
Ivor Hall
East Dereham
Eastern Daily Press 26th August 1998

Your report (August 22) of contracts being signed for the bulding of a new NHS flagship hospital in Edinburgh reminds me that the annual rental for the new Colney hospital has still not been announced.
In April it was reported that the N&N Health Care NHS Trust had promised that as soon as it was given the go-ahead by the NHS Executive it would release the details. Now that the construction work is well under way how much longer have we got to wait?
E.J.Fowler
Eastern Daily Press 27th August 1998
[The answer is until 28th August. The annual rental will be £22.8 million, making a total of £1,386,000,000 over 60 years]

Questions that need answers
Welcome to Robin Pooley, batting for us on N&N Healthcare Trust sticky wicket.
We sincerely believe we have been conned into paying for a too grand, yet inadequate hospital we don't want, and denied the hospital we do, by people we perceive as not representing us.
Would you, Robin, buy an unsuitable house in the wrong area without knowing its price?
We've been forced into that against our democratic wishes - no decision made without knowing costs, beds sufficiency or viable alternatives for us to judge.
Please answer the following frankly before you "pad up":

  1. Convince us that 800 beds are adequate.
  2. How much will Colney cost annually above present costs and will that extra come from our budget?
  3. Confirm or deny -
  4. How much will the bus fare be to the city centre?
  5. Colney's "best treatment from medics using latest technology." Don't we have that now? If not, why not? That's where the money should go. Are present people and equipment inadequate, or will they be the same but in better buildings?
There will be other questions, Robin, especially from patients worried about their future health care, if only because a London consultant told us to worry.
Roy Hansell
Norwich
Eastern Evening News 1st September 1998

With reference to the letter of August 26, "Hospital must make profits".
Like most people hereabouts we knew of the proposed new hospital at Colney but we were more worried at the difficulty we would have with no transport and no proper bus or train service to get there.
Now the cat has been let out of the bag and we know that the hospital will no doubt be run to make a profit for private investors.
The National Health Service, of which we have been very proud, and envied by other countries, will be pushed to one side unless we all take it seriously and make a fuss.
I recently wrote to the Prime Minister and four other well-known people, as well as another two today.
I would urge your readers to do likewise - even if we can't stop the scandal at least we can let them know we object. So please write or phone anyone involved.
Dorothy Finch
Cantley
Eastern Daily Press 2nd September 1998

True figure needed of hospital impact
So the Colney hospital will cost taxpayers £1.3 billion over the next 60 years, burdening our children and their children's future with the debts for this greenfield site.
Malcolm Stamp's pact with private finance cannot be rescinded by any Government, whatever colour, within the next 60 years.
By that time it will be obsolete and may come back into public ownership. Who knows?
We are sold something less for a lot of money (811 beds for 1200). Nearly a quarter of the annual budget, with all its responsibilities and needs, will be spent to pay back fivefold the inflated hospital costs.
The huge car park (40 acres out of 60) will generate lots of money but produce 15-20 times more traffic and pollution along the now quiet Colney Lane.
The position of the hospital will force some people into their cars and make an extra bus journey inevitable for 30% of Norfolk's population without a car.
This unpopular hospital was pushed on us, with an overwhelming majority objecting to it because of serious access, environmental and infrastructural reasons.
Sheer expedience of consultants, planners and secretive moneylenders have persuaded New Labour that Conservative plans were just the ticket.
They are now busy converting the NHS into a private practise.
We proposed a direct access from the southern bypass as a minimum reqirement, but it was decided for the better for us, they say, that traffic impact is better placed into the residential areas of Cringleford, Eaton, Bowthorpe, Little Melton and even Costessey.
We call upon responsible GPs in these areas to monitor changes in stress related illnesses, asthma, acute emergencies and especially traffic accident victims, to get a true picture of the overall impact and learn from our mistakes.
I.Wagenknecht Rockland St Mary
Eastern Evening News 4th September 1998

Hospital rent will have to increase
NHS chiefs recently revealed that Norwich's new hospital at Colney is to cost taxpayers £1.368 billion in total rental charges at an average annual rent of £22.8 million.
Are NHS chiefs so naive they believe the annual rent will remain constant at that figure throughout the entire 60 year period?
Haven't they heard of inflation and landlords' profits?
Assuming a very modest constant annual five per cent inflation increase on that rent throughout 60 years, the rental in the final year alone would be £405.61 million.
The cumulative totla payable for the entire period would be £8.062 billion.
It is time the NHS chiefs stopped pulling the wool over taxpayers' eyes and issued factual statements and calculations.
Fred Curtis
New Costessey
Eastern Daily Press 7th September 1998

Hospital will be a millstone
Your article (September 15) on the Health Secretary's happy visit to Colney and his wholehearted endorsement of the hospital deal between the NHS and Octagon Healthcare did not seem consistent with the front page article of August 29th (repeated in the Evening News) in which it was put over as something of a shocker.
Now that the euphoria of Frank Dobson's visit is over and his ventriloquial, political arithmetic duly noted, perhaps some real thought can be given to the colossal millstone which the NHS has seen fit to hang round the taxpayer's neck.
A scenario has been built up of a "centre of excellence" which, against all traditions of NHS hospitals becoming "unsuitable" almost as soon as they are built, will continue to grow in stature, by courtesy of Octagon Healthcare, long after all contractual parties are dead and forgotten.
Mr Dobson spoke of out-of-date buildings, plant and equipment throughout the country, where demoralised staff were working in deplorable conditions. He failed to add that many of these were built not so long ago and were all "centres of excellence" until the malaise set in.
The concept of a 60-year "standing stone" is strongly at variance with the East Norfolk Health Authority's programme of planning for continuing change and development as defined in its draft strategy, for example population and logistic changes, resiting and rebuilding, revolutionary changes in medical treatment and so on.
A mere 10 years or so, let alone 60 years, could - and no doubt will - bring about conditions rendering the Colney edifice every bit as "unsuitable" as its many predecessors.
The more one thinks about this contract, the more outlandish it becomes. So outlandish, in fact, as to suggest doubts that any part of it could be legally enforced, which raises a spectre in itself. No one would wish to pour cold water on the prospect of a big new 800 bed hospital but the question does not go away - at what price and for what duration? One question I, personally, would like to throw is : How soon will it be turned into another Aladdin's cave for computer salesmen?
Exactly how the vast sums of money will be allotted (or, more importantly, earned) seems to be information not remarkably forthcoming.
Vague and meaningless terms such as "plant and equipment", "services", "maintenance", "depreciation" and " information technology" are thrown about copiously by Health Secretaries and officials alike and succeed in divulging nothing.
With all respect to Mr Dobson, I do not think the health service will ever come into its own until a Health Secretary comes along with the courage to spell out why its malaise has little, if anything, to do with buildings, plant or equipment.
RW Arculus
Mundesley
Eastern Daily Press 22nd September 1998

Patience needed on hospital plan
Your article and leader item on the new Norfolk and Norwich Hospital (December 29) conclude that you hope all agencies will work to ensure a road access that is both efficient and relatively environmentally friendly. South Norfolk Council concurs with that view but questions the suggested solution.
In the absence of a viable city centre site for the hospital, the next best thing must be a hospital with good access from the city centre.
In our view the best second access would be from a roundabout on the A11 at Cringleford as proposed in the South Norfolk Local Plan. This would allow buses to and/or from the city centre to use Newmarket Road and divert into the hospital without touching the Thickthorn roundabout or the southern bypass.
The access road would also be paid for by the developer of a housing allocation at Cringleford which is being considered as part of the local plan public enquiry.
It is expected that the inspector will report before the end of 1999 and South Norfolk Council will then have to carefully consider his comments.
The alternative access points either directly from the southern bypass or from the Thickthorn roundabout do not share these access and funding advantages and would ultimately lead to the whole area between Colney, Cringleford and the southern bypass being built up. The process of Norwich extending out to the bypass would then have begun.
South Norfolk Council granted planning permission for the hospital from a single access point in June 1996 because the advice from the county council officers was that a second access, although desirable, was not essential.
For South Norfolk Council to have insisted on a second access certainly would have led to years of delay and could have put the whole hospital project into jeopardy since there was no guarantee that a second access could be provided or funded.
We therefore stand by our 1996 decision, since he who hesitates is lost. But what is needed now is patience not panic.
Dr Murray Gray
Chairman South Norfolk Council Planning Committee
Eastern Daily Press 31st December 1998

Top of Page Home Page Mail KOHIN Index The Takeheart Health Check

"It is the people's national health service and we should never forget that."

(Alan Milburn MP, Minister of State for Health, Hansard 15th May 1997)

"City centres are the places for hospitals."

(John Gummer, recently Minister for the Environment, Bristol 22nd March 1996)