A ROW over consultation on the future of Oxfordshire ambulance service has intensified with ministers being urged to make a stand against "anti-democratic bureaucrats".

The results of the consultation on whether the county's ambulance trust should join a new super ambulance trust are being bitterly disputed, with opponents and supporters of the merger claiming success.

Former Oxford Lord Mayor John Power has now written to Oxfordshire MP Andrew Smith asking him to bring the issue to the attention of health ministers.

Mr Power, who served as a non-executive director of the county ambulance trust for seven years, insists the Oxfordshire consultation shows 55 per cent of those taking part to be against the county service merging with ambulance trusts in Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Royal Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.

Mr Power said: "The results show people are against an ambulance trust that would stretch from Newport to Northampton and abandon any sense of a local service.

"When the Prime Minister talks about localism and patient choice he has my unswerving support. Yet below him the anti- democratic bureaucrats are busy sabotaging those ideals.

"Groups who rely on the localism of the ambulance service like the Carers' Forum and Age Concern are now faced by a Leviathan completely out of their control and influence."

But Helen Robinson, spokesman for Oxfordshire Ambulance Trust, rejected claims any decision has already been made to merge.

She said the consultation had been carried out in accordance with the Department of Health guidelines.

She also rejected suggestions that a chief executive had already been appointed to head an enlarged trust.

William Hancock, presently chief executive of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire ambulance trust, had only been appointed as "a transition lead" to prepare for the possible merger.

But the result is itself proving the real bone of contention.

Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority says the consultation in Oxfordshire in fact shows 53 per cent of those taking part backed the merger plan.

Opponents point out this was achieved by dividing the opposition votes into distinct categories "Does not support proposal" and "Supports no change."

A third category "Supports something different" was then excluded from the anti-reorganisation total, partly on the grounds that it included suggestions for even larger mergers.