SLOWLY but surely “the cat is being let out of the bag” and the truth about Queen Mary’s Hospital is emerging from the web of lies, cover-ups and half truths woven over the past couple of years.

Two recent News Shopper reports have given a clear view of what is in store.

On May 20th, in a low-key news item, the chief executive of the local healthcare trust just happened to admit the possibility of part of the site being made available for housing.

This is despite the strenuous denials made during the consultation on the A Picture of Health document when we were assured no plans exist for housing development on the site.

Part of this consultation took place at the acrimonious public meeting held in the Council Chamber in Bexleyheath.

Sir George Alberti pledged Queen Mary’s would remain a substantial hospital and planned operations for the whole area of the various hospitals involved would be concentrated there.

He said any attempt to close or further downgrade Queen Mary’s would be “over my dead body”.

In the July 1 edition of News Shopper, Dr Jo Medhurst said: “The Queen Mary’s site will look very different in two years’ time. The campus will not look or feel like a hospital."

In all of the current plans, we now see very little mention of planned surgery, which supports all of the fears of campaigners who were involved in the various protest groups.

Perhaps now, Sir George could hold a follow-up meeting to explain the changes to us.

I was lucky enough to be one of those who gave evidence to the panel set up to review the decision about Queen Mary’s Hospital and I have also read the full report setting out their judgment.

This report gives further evidence the original proposal about planned surgery was a political sop to Bexley people to reduce their objections to the closures as the report waters down the proposals for this type of surgery compared with the original plan.

Finally, in my interview with the “Independent” Review Panel, I emphasised the difficulties for patients’ relatives and friends in travelling to and from the hospitals taking over from Queen Mary’s.

I also made the suggestion one or more members of the panel should try late in the afternoon to go by bus from a central location such as The Oval, Sidcup, to the Princess Royal University Hospital in Farnborough to see for themselves the time and difficulties involved.

My suggestion was not taken up and to illustrate the mindsets involved Bexley residents might appreciate the following precise extracts from the panel’s report which I have managed to obtain and read.

On the subject of difficulties of travelling between the various hospital sites, the report included the statement: “However, the Panel found overland railway services between all of the main areas of population were good.”

Clearly The Panel members, none of whom were from this area, did not appreciate people living in Sidcup cannot travel directly to Farnborough by train.

On the subject of bus services, the report said: “Bus services throughout the four boroughs appear to be plentiful and timely."

These comments conjure up for me a picture of elderly relatives at times of acute stress having to spend literally hours and considerable expense travelling back and forward to see their loved ones.

We in Bexley are surely destined to lose this fight but we should at the very least ensure our feelings regarding this whole shameful episode are recorded and not forgotten.

Also, we should not forget those local professionals who went along with it and in doing so advanced their own careers.

As a result our next generations will not have the advantage of their own local hospital and will surely not believe we simply allowed this to happen.


W J Griffith, Walton Road, Sidcup