Home >>

Campaign news >>

The threat to the PRH >>

Have your say >>

What the clinicians say >>

Forthcoming events >>

Past events >>

Send us your stories >>

Online petition >>

Printable petition >>

Photo gallery >>

Supporters >>

Contact us >>
 

Nicholas Soames MP's response to the consultation
14 November 2007


Mid Sussex MP Nicholas Soames has made the following response to the Primary Care Trust, which should be read in conjunction with the response made by the campaign.


Re: Response by Nicholas Soames, Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex to the West Sussex Primary Care Trust’s Consultation –

Creating an NHS Fit for the Future

As you know together with a number of Parliamentary colleagues and public spirited and concerned constituents we established the Support the Princess Royal Hospital Campaign

My formal response to the “Creating an NHS Fit for the Future” paper is thus in support of the very detailed paper that the campaign has produced. 

I think it is very important that you understand, which I believe you do, the very strong feelings of my constituents about the Princess Royal Hospital. You will be in receipt of a great deal of well informed views from people who know what is required by way of hospital services for a rapidly growing area.

As you are aware the Campaign has organised a petition now signed by 71,727 people – a remarkable testament to their views.

I am heartened by the early noises coming out of the various bodies but I wish to flag up two very important points.

The people of central Sussex need a consultant-led maternity unit at the PRH. Clinical opinion is that expectant mothers should not have to travel long distances to give birth, especially when what starts as a straightforward delivery suddenly becomes complicated. The safety of mother and baby is put at risk. The Hospital campaign believes that other hospitals will simply not have the capacity to cope. It would be wrong to alter the service today on the back of a promise to “respond positively” if birthing numbers later increase (which they almost certainly will).

Equally worrying is the future for intensive care (ITU) services which cater for a broad spectrum of eventualities. Lives depend upon their being close at hand and properly resourced. Consultant physicians at the PRH believe that patient care for an unselected medical intake would be compromised if level 3 ITU were not immediately available on-site. The health bodies need to give this issue their most serious consideration.  

The bottom line is that the PRH (as a district general hospital) must be given the tools and resources it needs to be able to continue to provide safe and sustainable acute services for the 300,000-plus people who live within its catchment area. Nothing less will do. 

I have taken the liberty of enclosing for you a letter that I wrote to Mike Wood on the 23rd February 2005 about Best Care, Best Place.  Nothing much has changed.

I would also be grateful if you would note the views of 165 GPs, from 32 GP surgeries in East and West Sussex who look after nearly 300,000 patients, who have expressed their views very strongly on these matters. 

Please come up with the right decision for Mid Sussex.

I also enclose two speeches which I have made on the subject on the floor of the House of Commons.