THE consultation period on the future of the 130-year-old Horton Hospital finished on Friday with campaigners submitting their response to the proposed cuts.

More than 20,000 people have signed a petition against Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust proposals to reduce staffing levels and services at the Horton.

The Keep The Horton General Campaign Group response to the proposals concludes that the proposed changes to the Horton constitute a down-grading of services previously identified as essential to the needs of people in North Oxfordshire.

In its report it says the strong public and professional opposition to the proposals was clear through the strength of responses from all sectors of the community and huge support at demonstrations.

Thirteen reasons are given for why the proposals should not be passed. These include 'unacceptable levels of risk' to patients, particularly mothers, the newborn and children; inadequate medical cover; increased cost to patients in respect of travel time and a failure on the part of the trust to address the issue of deficit and explore other options.

Banbury MP Tony Baldry has thrown his support behind the campaign. He said he hoped the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust would listen to what it had been told.

He said: "I genuinely hope that the trust will stand back and think about it again and take stock. The trust has managed to carry no other medical opinion with it on their proposals. There is not a single GP who has said there is something in what they say. That's 58 to 0."

In its alternative to the proposal, the Horton campaign group claims cost would not be an issue if the money was being spent prudently. It estimates the cost of maintaining existing services at between £1.58m and £1.85m per annum.

The alternative option also offers a new staffing plan which preserves all the services, solving the problem of 'middle grade cover' in various specialities by the use of rotation.

It states: "Failure to make public these alternatives or to approach them in a positive and open-minded manner is misleading the public and not in the spirit of proper consultation."

The response also calls for the trust to extend the consultation deadline to allow for proper consideration of the proposals.

It states: "We reject the trust's proposals in their current form, but would welcome the chance to work with them openly and honestly to find a solution that provides a safe, sustainable service for the people of Banbury."