REGARDING your article on the NHS Trust proposed merger (‘Hosptials blow after merger move block’, July 12), the Competition Commission is there to regulate and safeguard the interests of the taxpayer.

It stated that if the merger went ahead, local patients could lose choice across nearly 60 services, including maternity, if they become managed by one single organisation – why is that not a headline?

NHS Trusts are there to efficiently and effectively utilise the funding they receive for the areas of their jurisdiction. Poole CEO Chris Brown states that his trust is ‘likely to go into the red next year and could be placed in administration’ – poor management of funding or failure to utilise and prioritise services is not the basis for a merger.

Also, why do the residents of Poole/Bournemouth/Christchur-ch have to be the guinea pigs for the very first merger of NHS trusts in England? What contingency plans are in place if it falls over? Perhaps a cutback in more services?

The Competition Commission is fit for purpose in considering any possible conflict of interests. I bet many key suppliers of services and materials to both trusts will be anxious to learn whether their business turnover with the trust will double or disappear, as, if the trusts are merged, consolidating the supply base in an effort to reduce costs would be key to demonstrating value for money to the taxpayer.

One would assume that if the merger goes ahead two CEOs would not be required and as one is, as reported by the Echo, allegedly being paid between £190,000 and £195,000 a year there would be an immediate saving there.

I await with interest for the Echo to advise the detail of the final submission to the Competition Commission, that balances loss of patient choice (that’s us) against ‘benefits’ identified in the merger.

JANET TURNER, Walters Drive, Pimperne