Touched by innocent faith!

Consultation means discussion, or conference. Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust will listen, but not take notice of what the public want. I went to the cluster group meeting in Ossett where the Mid Yorkshire Hospital Trust put its case for downgrading Dewsbury Hospital A&E and the other changes. I listened very carefully and there, hidden in the words, was the intention to push this proposal through, the implication being, that if they didn’t, the external assessors would not pass the plans and then everybody would lose what we had, through more cuts (and a sell off.) The Mid Yorkshire Hospital Trust would use the consultations as an opportunity to ‘sell’ the proposals. Their word not mine. So who is really ‘in charge’?

I think the Lewisham decision, answers that. A legal challenge will follow. So it would seem that our government would rather our NHS tax and National Insurance money be spent on enriching lawyers to defend cases against the NHS, (Suffolk is also mounting a legal challenge to a consultation,) and lining the pockets of Chief Executives and shareholders of Virgin, and InHealth, plus, nationally, Circle (Hinchingbrooke), Serco, Interserve and the rest, than treat our children locally.

On 23 October 2012, I wrote to my MP Simon Reevell with a question, along the lines of: “ Please explain the government’s ethical rationale for using British taxpayer’s money to boost the incomes of shareholders and Chief Executives of private companies when they are awarded contracts to deliver health services for the NHS?” This question has been sent round a few departments, but no answer has been received. I could now include lawyers in that question.

I have heard a rumour that in April, the hospitals not in PPFI’s will be transferred to a company called PropCo, who will then own and manage them. The existing informal arrangements between local organisations and the hospitals will have to be changed. What will happen then, to charities like the Rosewood Centre, in Dewsbury Hospital?

Everyone agrees that something had to be done with the hospital set up, because system was not delivering acceptable standards. However, the Health and Social Care Bill 2012, is a disgrace and brings shame on all who voted in favour of it. It is a vehicle for the privatisation of the NHS and needs repealing. Simon Reevell may defend privatisation, blaming the mess the Government inherited. However, it is a fact, that the present government is reaping the benefit of the bank bailout. More ordinary people and businesses, still have a bit of money. If the banks had failed, David Cameron would now be dealing with awful levels of deprivation and social unrest.

When I spoke to Simon Reevell in May 2011, pointing out the dangers of the proposed health and social care bill, he was particularly unreceptive to any arguments, repeating words along the lines of, “It doesn’t matter. Treatment will still be free at the point of need!” No matter how you vote, the next big pandemic virus, will infect indiscriminately. I have seen an article which suggests McKinsey & Co. have recommended ‘free at the point of need ‘ be abandoned. What McKinsey recommends, Our Government does. I’m saving up, and speaking out!

Yours sincerely

Christine Hyde

Scarr End Lane

Dewsbury