TWENTY-one beds for older mental health patients at Farnham Hospital are in the balance, with the board of Guildford and Waverley Primary Care Trust poised to make its decision on the future of local hospital beds. In the face of a report by a health watchdog body, which failed to back any of the five options put forward in a public consultation and labelled them as being primarily aimed at addressing the PCT's financial deficit, it emerged this week that its board is being recommended to press on with Option 1 - keeping beds open at Haslemere Hospital and removing beds from Cranleigh Hospital. Milford Hospital would be closed and its 42 consultant-led rehabilitation beds reprovided in Farnham, along with specialist services. Overall, the number of beds in the district would be reduced from 172 to 139, but Farnham Hospital would be used to capacity, with beds that are currently empty brought back into use and the adult mental health patients relocated "to a more appropriate setting". The PCT stressed that the board will not be making a decision on any of the options until it meets to formally review the outcome of the public onsultation. Its extraordinary meeting in public takes place next Thursday (April 27) at 2-30 pm at Guildford Baptist Church. But South West Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt regarded it as a fait accompli and said he was deeply disappointed with the news that Option 1 was "being pushed through" by the PCT. "This is terrible news for Farnham, which is now basically becoming a specialist rehabilitation hospital instead of the local community hospital Farnham has long campaigned for," he said.  "The totally arbitrary way the decision was made to close Milford means that nowhere is really safe. When will we get a local health service that makes decisions based on long- term health needs rather than short-term financial imperatives? "This is a bleak day for future of our community hospitals in South West Surrey." The local health watchdog, the Surrey Health Scrutiny Committee, which has the power to refer the matter to the Health Secretary, has concluded in its report that all the options - affecting beds variously at Haslemere, Milford, Farnham and Cranleigh - focus more on achieving savings than on health improvement. It ruled "on balance, that the consultation process was adequate", but described the document on which the consultation was based as "flawed in a number of areas". In its long and detailed report, which will be among the issues to be considered at the PCT board meeting, the scrutiny committee stated that it understands the pressure that the trust is under to achieve financial balance. It also "fully understands the need to 'modernise services' away from expensive, and at times unnecessary, inpatient care in district general hospitals and agrees with the principles in 'Keeping Services Local', aimed at ensuring that more health services are provided closer to home". But it described proposals in the PCT's consultation document as being "primarily aimed at addressing the current financial deficit faced by the NHS and focusing more on achieving cost savings rather than health improvement". This, it pointed out, was at odds with the government's health care White Paper, which states: "Community facilities should not be lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures that are not related to the viability of the community facility itself." The scrutiny report observed that the proposals did not appear to have the support of the Patient and Public Involvement forum, local authority social care sector, district and borough councils, or voluntary and other carer groups. And it went on to refer to the widely held view that the proposals were divisive of communities, staff and services, lacking in clear information and financial details, unfair and poorly timed. "Taking into account all of the views that it has heard, the committee would find it difficult to accept that any of the five options provide an optimum solution that would provide reassurance, enjoy the confidence of the public and effectively meet the health intests of the area." Jeremy Hunt said the findings of the scrutiny committee simply reinforced the views of campaigners who desperately wanted Milford and Haslemere Hospital to remain open with the same number of beds. "To be criticised so roundly by the one body that has the power to refer any decision to the Secretary of State is highly significant," he said. "The health scrutiny committee is now the latest in a long line of people demanding the PCT reconsiders this utterly flawed consultation. Our only hope now is for the non-execs on the PCT board to have the courage of their convictions and insist any decision is left to the successor PCT body." The board of the PCT nevertheless issued a statement welcoming the formal response from the scrutiny committee. Chris Grimes, chairman, said the board was particularly pleased that the committee had stated that it is satisfied with the public consultation process and had formally acknowledged that the status quo cannot be maintained. "The committee further stated in its response that changes must be made and that the current arrangements are not sustainable, neither in the short nor longer terms. The committee also recognised the pressures that the PCT is under to achieve financial balance and endorsed the direction of travel outlined in a 'Patient led NHS'. "While not supporting any of the five options put forward in the consultation document, as it did not feel that any of them provided an optimum solution, it has indicated a desire to continue to engage with local health trusts about the wider issues affecting healthcare services across the whole of Surrey, in order to form a view on how best the NHS should respond to the current pressures and problems." Mr Grimes said the board will be carefully considering the comments made at next week's meeting and thanked the committee for its contribution.