BMA (Contract Negotiations)

Debate between Andrew Smith and Helen Jones

Monday 21st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. First, the research has its critics, and various bits of research done on deaths following weekend admissions have reached different numbers: 3,000; 4,400; 6,000. The problem is that it is difficult to ascertain cause and effect. If the research is adjusted for the fact that we admit different kinds of patient at the weekend—people are sicker and there are more emergencies, and not many elective patients in most trusts—there remains a slight increase in the death rate. The problem is that ascertaining the cause is difficult. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) pointed out in a previous debate on this issue, when hospitals look back at such deaths, it is difficult for them to find out what could have been done differently in those 30 days.

When a complaint was made to the UK Statistics Authority about the use of those data, it said:

“We are speaking with Department of Health officials to ask that future references to this article are clear about the difference between implying a causality that the article does not demonstrate, and describing the conclusions reached by the authors.”

The reason is that although the research shows us that something is going on that we need to investigate, it does not show exactly what is causing it. I do not know whether the Secretary of State understands that. If he does not, I must say that Oxford is probably not what it was. However, I suspect that he understands it very well.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I assure my hon. Friend that Oxford is certainly not only what it was, but better than it was. Therefore, the Secretary of State really ought to understand what is going on.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for defending the university in his town. I am sure that he is right.

Any experienced negotiator will say that beginning negotiations by insulting the staff is never a good tactic. That is part of what the Government have attempted in muddying the waters: first, by drawing conclusions from the research that are not there, and secondly, by not being clear what they mean by a seven-day NHS. They have constantly said, “We need a seven-day NHS”. What they fail to tell us is whether they want a seven-day emergency service, which we already have but everybody accepts that it could be improved, or a seven-day elective service, which will require a huge investment not only in doctors and nurses but in diagnostics, support staff, lab technicians and so on. That failure to be clear has made doctors very wary of what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and she is right.

The Government need to make clear what they are trying to do, then they need to negotiate with the staff in good faith. Unfortunately, there is not much good faith around at the moment. That is why 90% of junior doctors have said they would consider leaving the NHS if the new contract is imposed on them. I do not think for one minute that 90% of junior doctors will go, but the Government have proceeded—as they do in a lot of cases—as if those junior doctors had nowhere else to go. Unfortunately, in this case they do: they can go to Scotland, or to Wales; or they can go and work abroad, where their skills are in high demand and where they will find, in many cases, they are paid more and work fewer hours than they do here. If even a small percentage of junior doctors go, what will the Government do to fill the gaps? We already have gaps in certain specialities, such as A&E, and paediatrics. What is the Government’s plan?

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate—she is making a powerful argument—and I congratulate all the people who petitioned for it. Does not the threat—and decision—by the Government to impose the contract amount to an admission on their part that they were incapable of persuading the critical backbone of NHS clinical staff that their plans made sense? If so, is that an abject failure or an act of malevolence?