Safeguarding doctor training and patient care

This week I had a PMQ ( Prime Minister's Question) about the effect of the European Working Time Directive on the NHS. It may sound a bit techie, but it's absolutely crucial.



Growing up with my dad as a surgeon in the NHS ( He worked at Southmead Hospital and the BRI for 30 years, and may well be responsible for any hip replacements or hand surgery of constituents reading this...) has given me a special regard for the professionals working in our NHS, and a particular perspective on the importance of what goes on at the coal-face of our public services.
One of the things that Doctors tell me about again and again is the devastating effect that the 48hour European Working Time Directive has both on doctor training ( the Royal College of Surgeons estimates that because of the Directive 400,000 surgical hours are lost PER MONTH) and also on patient care. ( all the 'clock-on, clock off' handovers mean that important bits on patient notes can get missed, and the poor patient is subjected to a conveyor belt of different doctors, instead of a few familiar faces of the doctors responsible for them.)

The directive limits doctors to working up to 48 hours per week, and takes away crucial flexiblity. No one wants to return to a situation where junior doctors are working silly hours and are too exhausted to practice safely. But there is a middle-way. The Royal College of Surgeons suggests that up to 65-hours a week is suitable, but with flexibilty to meet the unpredictable realities of hospital care.

And guess what: there are no special provisions in the directive for exceptional circumstances like a 'flu pandemic - so it is hard to see how in this scenario, the NHS will have the flexiblity to cope. (More on this in a recent article I wrote for The Times on 20th Jan.)

I presented a bill to Parliament to try to tackle it,

have written in the national papers on the issue, and am working hard to try and untangle this mess of an EU Directive which is putting our NHS, and patient care at such risk. Government is supportive, but it must act quickly. Because whatever the structural reforms, the future of our NHS and the patients it cares for depends on the medical professionals who work there.

Daylight Saving Bill and parliamentary frustrations

Processes in Parliament can be frustrating. Seldom has it been as frustrating, and , many would say, mis-used as in the debate on Rebecca Harris MP's Daylight Saving Bill.

The Bill, which called for a proper review of the pros and cons of keeping British summertime all year round, to settle once and for all the debate that returns year after year to parliament, but has historically always been stumped down because of internal process, had got further through parliament than ever before.

There was an overwhelming parliamentary concencus for the Bill, and well over 120 MPs had sacrificed time in their constituencies that Friday in order to vote for it. But the Bill was stopped. Why? Not by strength of argument, or through debate, or through numbers of opposition - but because a small group of MPs chose to 'talk it out'. That is, put down huge numbers of amendements, to which they could speak, to literally 'talk it out of time'.

Here's a clip of me being very politely frustrated that people were prepared to do this.



It was a very sad day for parliament. It was a day when the manipulation of internal process by the few, got in the way of getting something done for the many.

I personally am for daylight saving. The evidence is that it will save lives, energy and increase uptake in sport, amongst other things. But we need a proper independent analysis. A tiny number of MPs deprived the nation of that.

I'm working with other MPs to ensure that the Bill is brought back. But it was a good example of Process vs. The People. And it is one of the reasons why Parliament is often held in such low regard. Many would say it is not only the clocks that have to change...