Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

LMCs reject plan to hand responsibility for out-of-hours care back to GPs

LMC leaders have rejected Jeremy Hunt’s call for GPs to resume round-the-clock responsibility for patient care - but have also rejected a motion of no confidence in the health secretary.

Delegates queued up to offer strongly worded objections to a motion proposed by sessional doctors subcommittee chair Dr Malcolm Kendrick which suggested that, given certain guarantees, GPs would be willing to resume responsibility for out-of-hours care. The motion was overwhelmingly rejected, with just one delegate voting in favour.

In opening the debate, GPC chair Dr Laurence Buckman said that the health secretary treating out-of-hours care ‘as a political football’ was not helpful but he urged GPs to look at what in his proposals they may be able to work with.

He said: ‘There were a number of things Mr Hunt said that I didn’t like and I don’t think you did either but I think we should look at what we cold work with.’

‘The devil is in the detail, but sign-off may be something that we could develop for the benefit of our patients.’

‘I laid down some lines in the sand yesterday in my opening speech when I said GPs won’t shore up urgent care. It appears Mr Hunt now agrees as he said he does not think GPs should constantly be on call.’

He reminded delegates that if they rejected the motion existing policy - that GPs do not accept out-of-hours responsibility, would still stand.

But after numerous speaker interventions and points of order, a separate motion proposed by Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire LMC which went further and explicitly instructed GPC to ‘oppose any proposition for GPs to take back responsibility for the organisation of out-of-hours services’ was not put to a vote.

GPs repeatedly expressed concern about the impact of the profession taking back responsibility.

One sessional subcommittee member said: ‘This motion does not have the full backing of the sessional doctors’ committee. If we take it back there is no way we could agree funding or agree that private companies do not get involved. If my husband thought I was in favour of this he would never speak to me again. Over my dead body.’

Another delegate said: ‘There would be so many GP resignations that general practice would collapse.’

Dr John Reynolds, from Derbyshire LMC said: ‘De facto, CCGs are now responsible for out of hours. We don’t need to change our policy.’

However, despite expressing strong criticism of his policies, the conference delegates narrowly voted against a motion declaring that GPs have lost confidence in health secretary Jeremy Hunt. In a close vote, which had to be concluded electronically, 40% of GPs wanted to pass the motion but 60% were against.

Dr David Wrigley, GPC member, who proposed the motion, said: ‘I have no confidence in Jeremy Hunt because he constantly undermines the NHS and denigrates doctors. Jeremy Hunt has been in place for just nine months and already he has proved to be the worst health secretary ever. He tweets like a teenager and said four million extra people were presenting at A&E, but he failed to mention that three million of these are to new walk in centres.’

But Dr Alan Mills from Cambridgeshire said: ‘There is time when less is more. It demeans our profession to stoop to personal attack. I think we have other, better things to do.’

LMCs also voted in favour of an emergency motion which said that GPs are the patients’ champions, that NHS staff is working harder than ever and that the targets and requirements of QOF, QP and enhanced services are getting in the way of dealing with patients.

Readers' comments (10)

  • I think Dr Kendrick's proposal showed some real tactical brilliance . The DH would unable to dump the private providers and could be portrayed as being intransigent , Now Primary Care will be spun as unwilling and uncaring . It seems Dr Kendrick has some media savvy - perhaps he should be a negotiator

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been deleted by the moderator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Right, that's it!!! Jeremy Hunt is going straight to tell on us to his secret friends at THE DAILY MAIL who will start making up stories about evil, murderous GPs-or some other drivel under the instruction of the MULTI-MILLIONAIRE AND WORLD ADVISOR ON MORALS AKA PAUL DACRE.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mark Struthers

    I agree with Richard Ansell that Malcolm Kendrick made a tactically brilliant proposal. Sadly, Dr Kendrick is a lion leading a flock of donkeys ... and donkeys can always be trusted to shoot themselves in the hoof.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Basically by committing to the free at the point of contact NHS primary care has sacrificed it's main negotiating position.i have worked in Australia and New Zealand and charging a fee if anything enhances the doctor patient relationship rather than diminish it. The GPC has to represent its members interest and pave the way for us to leave by suggesting consultation charges and showing leadership on leaving the NHS can you you imagine virgin rail running a train service and being told it cannot charge passengers and being criticised for restricting access the Tories can't have it both ways the GPC showed weakness by avoiding the no confidence vote who do they think they can impress,Tory ministers,!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    No confidence vote on a Secretary of State is very much different from 'personal attack' . People need to be clear on this logic and philosophy before you are to face these politicians . This is an action which is part of 'other better things to do', mate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Persons with authority and power to rule and influence people in society have the responsibility to face criticisms . This is part of the social contract between government and people . This is NOT personal attack.
    ' A person with no virtue holding a high and powerful position is spreading evils through the most'
    Mencius (372-289),ancient China

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated - please can you only write in English on this website as we cannot moderate comments in other languages

  • Realistically, any 'guarantees' would be worthless if the Government can subsequently unilaterally impose contract changes. GPs cannot trust this Minister or this Governement. The public may feel the same when it is time to look at their next election manifesto and compare it with what they were told last time...
    And by the way, 'personal responsibility' will no doubt include the financial responsibility to provide out of hours care so expect another income drop.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What is The DAILY MAIL's new secret weapon against GPs? None other than Janet Street Porter! My concerns that his over-dentured individual seems to have a remedial understanding of health issues have been verified by her track record of denigrating the serious illness of Depression to a mere "trendy illness". Daily Mail, surely you can do better than this in return for the fat,greedy cheques that you pay??????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I want to hear more opinions on the NHS from the MULTI-MILLIONAIRE PRIVATE GP AKA DR MARTIN SCURR. I personally value his views and scribble away frantically noting down his gems of wisdom

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say