Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-186)
8 JULY 2004
RT HON
JOHN HUTTON
MP, PROFESSOR DAVID
COLIN-THOME
AND MS
MARGARET EDWARDS
Q180 Mr Bradley: This is a 6% increase
on what they said they actually had. As you quite rightly pointed
out, no one was daft enough to believe that the population in
Manchester was going down, as was originally proposed. I am glad
you recognise the problem.
Mr Hutton: Yes.
Q181 Dr Naysmith: I am very happy to
associate myself with what Keith has just said and pleased with
your reply because we have found an extra 6000 people in Bristol
as well!
Mr Hutton: I think those people
probably did not think they were ever lost in the first place!
Q182 Dr Naysmith: The question is, to
go back to this idea of inadequate funding by PCTs, we were told
fairly firmly by a GP co-op based in Cornwall that there was a
shortfall and that it could affect them in that PCTs were cutting
back in providing a decent service, and this could lead to reductions
in the quality of the service.
Mr Hutton: I do not know the details
of the situation in Cornwall but I will certainly look into it.
I think Cornwall was one of the areas that benefited from the
additional funding that went into the out-of-hours development
envelope.
Q183 Dr Naysmith: If that evidence is
available maybe we can look at it before we publish our report.
Mr Hutton: Certainly.
Q184 Dr Naysmith: The other point arising
from that is the longer-term. If it did turn out to be inadequate
funding—and I am not saying that there is at the moment,
just that we have been told there is—that could have a knock-on
effect in the future in terms of GPs, GP co-operatives particularly,
if they feel that they are not being properly funded for a medical
service, and they could say, "We are not going to be associated
with it," and that could be a very serious problem.
Mr Hutton: I agree with that.
I hope people will take a reasonably objective view of this and
at least acknowledge that the Government has tried to put significant
extra resources in to deal with these sorts of issues. It is a
completely false economy for us to be prepared to sit back and
see out-of-hours services and primary care not being properly
resourced because, as I said earlier, in relation to Jim Dowd's
question, the demand is there and it will show up somewhere in
the Service. It is not the case that if we do not fund out-of-hours
services effectively, somehow we do not need to provide treatment
for those patients—we need to treat them somewhere. It is
essentially in our interests to get the funding right for out-of-hours
services and in essence to make sure that the Service runs efficiently.
I cannot sit here and say to you what funding allocations we will
make over and above what we have currently announced, but obviously
we will keep this very carefully under review. It is not in our
interests to see Primary Care Trusts or GP co-ops short changed
when it comes to out-of-hours services, and we will not do that.
Q185 Jim Dowd: Have you ever experienced,
during the time you have been doing this job, an occasion when
a new initiative or a change of any kind has been met with the
response from a PCT saying, "You are giving us far too much
money"?
Mr Hutton: I cannot recall that
ever happening!
Q186 Chairman: In conclusion, can I thank
you for your evidence. We hope to complete this report literally
in the next couple of weeks. It would be very helpful if you were
able to get back to us urgently on the points that you have promised
to write to us about so that we can have your further evidence
when we complete the inquiry.
Mr Hutton: We will certainly do
that. I think we are writing to the Committee today as well about
my invitation, the last time I gave evidence to you, about arranging
some visits for you to look at IT programmes.
Chairman: Thank you.
| 
