Proceeding contribution from Charlotte Atkins (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 March 2007. It occurred during Estimates day on NHS Deficits.
NHS Deficits
Absolutely. The decision to ensure that the PFI hospital went ahead in a slightly smaller form was sensible, because we could have ended up with a white elephant—a huge hospital that would not have been fit for purpose in the 21st century because so many good things are going on in the local PCT area. We are sending far fewer people to hospital. Central out-patients has had a reduction of 20 per cent. in GP referrals because of the work that GPs and PCTs are doing locally to prevent the admission of patients to hospital. The work that is being done locally to make sure that patients are less dependent and do not end up in the acute sector is to be praised, but there must be consistency. My local PCT, the North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust, is doing a fantastic job in that respect, but I am not convinced that that is happening countrywide. We must resolve those issues. If we do not, the increasingly elderly population will mean that we find ourselves in another crisis. The Department of Health cannot micro-manage the NHS; it has to be down to local organisations to do that. I am pleased that PCTs and trusts now have to achieve financial balance. The need to balance the books has driven much of the good change that we have seen. It has been necessary to drive down costs and deliver value for money, but in my area that has not been at the cost of patient care—in fact, it has improved patient care. We have introduced community matrons; I think that there was a financial incentive to do that, in the context of reducing acute admissions. We also have deep-vein thrombosis testing locally in Leek, the prevention of falls programme—again expertly led at the local Leek hospital—and PhysioDirect, which allows physiotherapists to treat people without a doctor’s appointment. All those services have ensured that care is delivered locally, where people want it, and not in the acute sector. I very much welcome the transparency that has come with the tightening of the NHS financial regime. In the past, we had constant rumours about how Staffordshire had lent vast sums of money to, say, Shropshire, but it was never clear on what basis that was done and whether interest rates were paid; I do not think that they were. We were never really informed of what was going on. Now the financial position of each organisation is known. Many PCTs resent the top-slicing of their allocations, but I hope that that is only a short-term measure, and that PCTs will be able to manage their local budgets appropriately and not have to shore up the strategic health authority balances. The Select Committee suggested that some deficits were down to the growth in staff costs. To some extent, that was a result of pay rises and GP and consultant contracts, but it was also a result of the vast increase in the number of staff. I have no particular difficulty with GPs being paid more, as long as they deliver more for patients. It cannot be right for doctors to claim payments for access to their services, in terms of appointments, when some are clearly not doing that. It is important for PCTs to police the contracts properly, so that where doctors are getting more money, they deliver the services well. Payments must bring results, and that has to be the case at every level, including the GP level. I am concerned about the decision to stage the nurses’ pay award. The independent nurses pay review body has done a fantastic job for nurses ever since it was set up many years ago. By considering the evidence from the unions, employers and Department of Health, it bases an award on the careful consideration of the facts. The review body came up with a 2.5 per cent. settlement. It was not generous, but it was fair. No matter how we dress it up, however, staging the award means that the pay award has been reduced by 0.6 per cent.—a cut that many nurses cannot afford if they are trying to get on the property ladder or raise a family. In the Department’s response to the Select Committee’s report, it says that staff costs are not a main reason for deficits. I cannot understand, therefore, why we are paring down the nurses award. I am particularly disappointed with the nurses’ pay award, because nurses have been through a lot. Even though there have not been a large number of nurse redundancies in my patch, there has been a great deal of anxiety among nurses about getting local jobs.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 458 c56-7
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Staff Audit Health services Finance Expenditure Health authorities NHS Recruitment Public expenditure Private finance initiative Primary care trusts Redundancy Department of Health Health Committee
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-11-24 10:43:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384218
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384218
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_384218