Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"'Free swim and gym' was one of the flagship pledges in Southwark Labour's 2014 election manifesto.

A pilot scheme offering free access to leisure facilities for under-18s and over-60s was introduced last year.

Next week Southwark's cabinet will rubber-stamp the arrangements to extend free swimming and gym access for borough residents aged 19 to 59 with effect from late July this year.

According to a report to be presented to cabinet by Cllr Barrie Hargrove, the council will offer free access to gym and swimming for all Southwark residents all day on Fridays and during the afternoons and evenings on Saturdays and Sundays until closing time.

Southwark Council officers who live outside the borough will also be eligible for the offer.

In his foreword to the cabinet report, Cllr Hargrove cites the swimming baths opened in Grange Road by Bermondsey Borough Council in 1927.

"Built in this part of London under the guidance of Bermondsey MP Alfred Salter, he was later heard to remark by responding to complaints by his detractors about the cost of this initiative that he only wished he could make the use of the swimming and bathing facilities free for residents," wrote Cllr Hargrove.

"So I cannot overstate the degree of pride I feel on helping to lead on this initiative being delivered by Southwark Council to provide free access to swimming and gym facilities in our borough."

The launch of universal access to free swimming and gym use will be timed to coincide with the start of the school summer holidays at the end of July this year.

The cost of the new scheme has been built in to the council's new contract for the management of its leisure centres.

The contract is currently held by Fusion and a new deal is due to be approved by cabinet next week.

Last week the council confirmed that The Castle ? the long-awaited new leisure centre at Elephant & Castle ? will open in April this year."


http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8634

Maybe, but the Council has made health and well-being a priority for the borough, which can only be a good thing. How it works in practice remains to be seen, of course, but I support the principle that people shouldn't have to pay just to keep fit.
This is excellent and offers free sessions to the under 60s - those over 60 have had this for a while. The only concern is if Fusion are allowed to keep the contract. The statement is non committal as to whether they will continue. If they are allowed to they will need to significantly up their game and respond to customers in a different way. For instance, will they cope with large numbers of people all accessing free sessions at the same time on Fridays and parts of the weekend?

It's an excellent idea that will enable people on low and no incomes to genuinely improve their fitness and health. The long term benefits of that will far outstrip any cost. Savings to potential treatments by the NHS alone are worth considering. Obesity and poor cardiovascular health opens up a person to a whole raft of medical conditions that are an expense not only to the NHS to treat, but also to local support services funded by the council.


We don't do enough preventative healthcare in the UK. This is a positive step towards that.

Actually, it's a very good idea if it's taken up by those who otherwise wouldn't exercise. The net benefit to 'society' by offering inducements to stay healthy is based on the conversion rate to healthy activity by members of that society. To pay Fusion to open the facilities free for 2 days (Friday and half Saturday and Sunday) pays back only when the societal health improves through take-up and the costs of coping with unhealthy people drops.


I hope that some monitoring of usage will be made, to check at least how many users, over time, have increased their levels of usage (and not just changed the days when they exercise) and how many new users (and not just those transferring from other, paid-for, gyms) there are.


I believe that the 'silver' (over 60s) usage has increased - will that translate down to the younger cohort?


It is a good idea, but monitoring its success is vital. And (probably) to be successful that means additional expense on (effective) publicity. 'Build them a field and they will come' maybe, but only if they know about it!

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, it's a very good idea if it's taken up

> by those who otherwise wouldn't exercise.



This is exactly right. And even then the cost benefit of a programme like this is much more complex than simply saying it will reduce pressures on the NHS. Running or walking round the park would have the same effect.


Making things free is good PR (as evident from the largely uncritical welcome here). But is not a sustainable policy at a time when councils have less money to spend. It's not to see it's not a nice idea with some value. But it's about priorities - ultimately I think it takes resources away from other services that are better value and more important.

El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Actually, it's a very good idea if it's taken

> up

> > by those who otherwise wouldn't exercise.

>

>

> This is exactly right. And even then the cost

> benefit of a programme like this is much more

> complex than simply saying it will reduce

> pressures on the NHS. Running or walking round the

> park would have the same effect.

>

> Making things free is good PR (as evident from the

> largely uncritical welcome here). But is not a

> sustainable policy at a time when councils have

> less money to spend. It's not to see it's not a

> nice idea with some value. But it's about

> priorities - ultimately I think it takes resources

> away from other services that are better value and

> more important.


But is the cost that great? It's not much more than the loss of revenue that would have accrued during those hours under the current regime.


Yes, running or walking would also be beneficial, but in the same way simply providing libraries doesn't get people reading ? 'nudging' them by means of reading schemes, book clubs, live readings etc does. Which is how I see this scheme.


And even good ideas might also be good PR :-)

Exactly. The gyms and swimming pools would still be open whether people were using them or not. They don't cost more to run because more people are using them. And the range of classes, activities on offer is wide ranging, so most revenue streams won't be affected at all. I would imagine Saturday and Sunday evenings are very much off peak anyway and many of the people taking advantage of the offer wouldn't go if they had to pay - so it's not really lost revenue at all. I think the cost is negligable.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...