§ 10. Mr. FoulkesTo ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total remuneration to chairpersons and members of NHS trusts estimated for 1992–93 in England and Wales.
§ Dr. MawhinneyThe estimated figure for 1992–93 in England is about £8 million. Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
§ Mr. FoulkesThe estimate is £8 million. How many doctors would that employ? How many nurses? How many physiotherapists? How many chiropodists? Is not it the case that this money is being taken away from patient care and stuffed into the pockets of Conservative cronies? Is not that tantamount to corruption?
§ Dr. MawhinneyI hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better for getting that off his chest. If we may take his questions literally, it is clear that he would leave the NHS without any oversight, without any public accountability and without any advice about the issues which, throughout Question Time, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends tell us are important.
§ Mr. RoweI am married to a trust member who has been employed by the national health service, in a fully professional capacity, for many years and my experience is that the amount of work expected from members of trusts exceeds by far what was indicated in the prospectus that was dangled in front of them. The work is done conscientiously and late into the night. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to all those NHS trust members who give far more to the national health service than the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) could possibly imagine?
§ Dr. MawhinneyI am happy to pay such tribute, particularly to my hon. Friend's Gentleman's wife who, as he has rightly and objectively said, makes a significant contribution. As to all trust members, they represent the public. They represent the need to put our reforms on a firm footing and they are largely responsible, with doctors, nurses and the rest, for seeing the increase in the number of patients treated, which is the hallmark of the national health service reforms.
§ Mr. BlunkettIn the light of the Secretary of State's speech earlier today on the continued future for regions and the role of the management executive and outposts, does the Minister agree that this is an admission that the market has failed and that trusts cannot be left to 758 self-governing status? Will he tell the House why we should be expected to pay £8 million a year to place people who are not accountable in any way to their local communities and who are not democratically elected and where central control is now to be exercised? Why the continued dithering and confusion with further reviews? Why are the outposts and regions to continue? Why more money announced today—on top of the £8 million to keep the trust in place, a £4 million announcement to make the system work better? Who is actually running the Department—the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or the right hon. Lady?
§ Dr. MawhinneyThe hon. Gentleman has just confirmed what we all suspected: he neither understands nor appreciates what the national health service reforms are about. The reforms are now widely seen to be successful, and successful against the target that the hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise: that they are good for patients, although not necessarily good for the National Union of Public Employees. More patients are being treated. What my right hon. Friend said this morning, which is absolutely central to the development of the reforms and even better patient care, is that we shall now focus as much attention on developing the purchasing side of the national health service as we have to developing the trust side. As that purchaser-provider split develops, so even more patients will be helped, treated and cared for, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt continue to be unhappy about that fact.
§ Dr. SpinkDoes my hon. Friend agree that the very essence of the health service debate is the number of patients that we treat each year? Will he tell us the growth in number of patients treated in trust hospitals in 1991–92 and compare that with the growth in number of patients treated in other hospitals? We need to know these facts.
§ Dr. MawhinneyMy hon. Friend understands these matters much better than Opposition Members. Last year we saw about a 7 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated within the national health service, and in trust hospitals the increase was over 8 per cent. In other words, trust hospitals delivered better patient care, more patient care and a higher quality of patient care than directly managed units. That is why, as my hon. Friend will understand, more hospitals will become trusts in April and even more will become trusts in April 1994, by which time 95 per cent. of all hospital and community units will be trusts. That is the good news that patients want to hear.