Chamber and committees

My first question is about staffing. Paragraph 25 of your report, on page 14, refers to the commitment to increase the NHS workforce by 1 per cent over the next five years, which equates to 1,800 whole-time equivalents. The NHS already has a record number of staff, although there are still many vacancies. The 1 per cent commitment does not take into account any reduction in WTE hours as the NHS comes down to a 35-hour week. Should it be reviewed in the light of those factors?

Is the 1 per cent that is referred to entirely arbitrary, or is it based on need?

You are waiting to see the direction of travel regarding what will happen down the line with the 1 per cent, given the reduction in the working week and so on.

It is pretty much impossible to tell much from such a crude figure, because we do not know how it is made up. Not all of the increase in staff will come from nurses, but we do not know what the breakdown is. I assume that there is no breakdown.

Why was that the preference? Was it the quality of the course?

It would be interesting to know whether there are other cases in which that has happened.

What proportion?

I presume that the personal tax implications arising from that policy were dealt with by the commission.

So powers were delegated down to whatever managerial level it came to, and those managers made the decision that the staff member qualified, but there was no consideration of tax implications at that point. Is that correct?

In that case, the board approved the policies and the package of measures.