' Her statement . . . is out of step both with reality and the
everyday experiences '
Shadow Health Secretary David Blunkett
HEALTH Secretary Virginia Bottomley was challenged yesterday over her
claim that no patients waited more than two years for in-patient or day
surgery.
She contrasted this to April 1992 when more than 1600 patients were in
queues for hospital treatment.
However, Shadow Health Secretary David Blunkett pointed out that
official statistics published by the Department of Health last month
showed 412 people listed as waiting more than two years.
The second Citizen's Charter report published yesterday compares
performance in the three months up to December 31, 1993, with
performance in the three months up to March 31, 1993.
Praising the NHS for taking the Patient's Charter ''into the heart of
its activities'', Mrs Bottomley said that the first NHS performance
tables would be published in the summer highlighting how each hospital
and ambulance service had performed.
The public and those who bought health services on their behalf would
be able to make straightforward and useful comparisons.
Accusing Mrs Bottomley of ''living in another world'', Mr Blunkett
said: ''Her statement today is out of step both with reality and the
everyday experiences of individuals and families across the country.
''The number of people waiting over a year has grown in every quarter
of this financial year -- a 30% rise since March 1993.''
Mr Blunkett said that there were also more than a million people
waiting for a first consultation out-patient appointment who were
ignored by the Department of Health in their official statistics.
About half the in-patients in Scotland are admitted immediately, the
Scottish Office said yesterday.
Of those who do have to wait, 57% wait less than three months, 91%
less than 12 months, and 95% wait less than 18 months -- but most of the
remainder are waiting more than two years. The actual numbers on waiting
lists also increased last year from 1992.
Citizen's Charter Minister William Waldegrave said that there were
''fundamental achievements to report'' and promised more to come.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article