After 1990 I was limited to my local hospitals with a few exceptions with whom the health authority

After 1990 I was limited to my local hospitals, with a few exceptions with whom the health authority had a contract, but I could choose which consultant I thought was suitable for my patient.Over the years I have come to know which consultant is good at certain aspects of their job, which ones are wise with certain complications, which ones give me particularly sound advice, which ones will go the extra mile. But, of course, we, as a nation, do continually demand ever increasing growth. All politicians, with the exception of the Greens, promote growth in GDP as the aim of their economic policies and they treat us exactly as people who can never be asked to reduce our greed.So whilst the target of the accusation may be broader than intended, the assertion is quite correct.DEE QUINNYORK Patients have less choice than ever Sir: We are told that patients are to have a choice of whom they see for hospital appointments (report, 2 January) I have been a GP for 25 years. Unfortunately the rest of his letter goes on to show why Ms Alibhai-Brown is broadly correct.The justification for his opinion is that the interests of shareholders broadly represent the wealth of the nation. I fail to see why an organisation with this sort of financial clout should receive any more money from the taxpayer, when there are much higher priorities for public spending.ALISTAIR MCBAYMETHVEN, PERTH We are all fat-cat shareholders Sir: The first sentence of Anthony Bicknell’s letter (3 January) asserts that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s description of shareholders as fat-cats demanding ever-increasing returns is “just plain wrong”. The investment performance alone means that the fund has been able to distribute £37m more each year to the Church, than if the investments had performed only at the industry average over the last 10 years. Why not try it with a UK referendum on the EU constitution?PETER MCCONNELLHORNING, NORFOLK Church of England’s financial clout Sir: Roy Thompson (letter, 29 December) says that the Government should give more money to churches so they can open during the day.The Church of England website reveals that Church Commissioners achieved a return of 13.6 per cent on their investments in 2004, and as a result of above-average performance over the last ten years, the asset value of the fund now stands at a handy £4.3bn.

The Dutch are tired of paying the highest per capita share of the burgeoning EU budget, and of seeing power slip away to Brussels.If you and other “yes” proponents continue to delude yourselves as to the real reasons for “no”, you will continue to get the same response from the people. The French people don’t want to replace their own society with an Anglo-Saxon model and don’t want 70 million Turks to be able to live in France That is why they voted “no”. This is an assumption which has no logical basis.PADDY HARVERSONCOMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO TRH THE PRINCE OF WALES AND THE DUCHESS OF CORNWALL, CLARENCE HOUSE, LONDON SW1 Delusions about the EU constitution Sir: Your article “Deep divisions betray a union in name only” perpetuates the idea that the French and Dutch “no” votes on the constitution had little to do with the contents of the treaty (2005 The Year in Review, 30 December).This delusion is exactly what led the two governments to defeat in the referendums. In particular, the author has decided that the Duchess accounts for 5 per cent of all the costs incurred by The Prince (including, for example, £62,000 for “wear and tear” of Clarence House). The main reason for the difference is that on many of the 2004 overseas visits the costs of entertaining guests at official tour events were borne by the host government, whereas in the US the costs were borne primarily by the FCO.Finally, the figures quoted under the sub-heading “The bill for a Duchess” are in many cases, based upon guesswork.

The bulk of that figure refers to the cost of entertaining the prominent and influential Americans and other guests who were invited to official functions and events during the tour.The article implies that the difference between the cost to the FCO of £86,000 for official overseas tours in 2004 and £180,000 for the US tour in 2005 was somehow linked to the presence of the Duchess This is nonsense. There were no additional travel costs incurred because of the Duchess and her staff, and additional costs in terms of accommodation and meals were relatively minor.The article quotes a figure of £180,000 for the costs met by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for hotels, meals and “entertainment of staff” on the US tour There was no cost for the entertainment of staff. Today four personal staff work for the Duchess, and their costs are met by the Prince from his personal income.The article estimates that £25,000 additional costs were incurred because of the Duchess’s presence on the recent US tour. The number of listed personal staff rose from 17 to 29 primarily because estate workers at the Highgrove Home Farm were added to the total for the first time in 2004. The Prince’s financial arrangements are not “complicated and opaque”. He is probably the only individual in the UK who publishes annual accounts detailing how he spends his private income, and the Duchy of Cornwall’s accounts are subject to scrutiny by independent auditors and the Treasury.The article implies that an increase in the Prince’s personal staff from 17 in 2003 to 29 in 2005 was evidence of “the growing financial burden of supporting” the Duchess of Cornwall This is not the case.