On the agenda for the next LMC meeting on Wed 29th April is a motion
which was returned from the SW LMCs meeting, and is to be proposed as a
motion to go to the LMCs conference.

I think it is a bad motion, and am inclined to speak and vote against
it, however I canvass opinion from you.

The motion was presented by a GMSC rep at the SW LMC, Peter Fellows
from Gloucester.
THose of you who follow the gp-uk list will have noticed he is _very_
against PCGs, although the reasons are less clear.

We are all, rightly, incensed by the abrupt way in which Mr Milburn
made a mistaken decision that no fees were to be paid by HAs for
telephone advice to TRs, and I and many others have written to tell him
he made a mistake, however linking the two matters is a mistake we are
being invited to make.

"Motion:
That Confernece instructs the GMSC, in the event of a failure to
negotiate an appropriate fee for telephone advice to temporary
residents, to advise all GPs to withdraw their co-operation in the
development of Primary Care Groups."

This is a bad motion.  It combines two matters which do not depend upon
each other.  It suggests action which is not aimed at what is alleged
to be the problem - the TR phone controversy.

It is in fact a motion produced as a way of opposing GP involvement in
PCGs.

If we do not in fact support PCGs, and it is not apparent to me that
there is in Exeter any great mood against commissioning; PCGs; or the
new NHS, but if we do not suppor tthem then let us debate a motion that
GPs should not co-operate in PCGs.

If on the other hand we support PCGs, or even propose to make the best
of them by getting on with it, we will not be helped by this motion
being passed.

If we wish to act in demonstration against the small amount of money
and larger inconvenience, or the justifiable irritation we feel related
to the uncharacteristically high-handed and inept action on TR fees by
Mr Milburn then let us have a motion that we will not provide telephone
advice to TRs unless a fee is negotiated.  "I am sorry, you must first
ring your own GP.  GIve him my number in case he wishes to ask me to
arrange a consultation with you, here".  The inconvenience would be
noticed, it is within our power to show ht ecitizens concerned that
this is due to a Gov decision to withdraw support for the provision of
telephone advice by GPs to TRs, (almost as they pay to set up a nurse
phone advice line!), and we could even preprint letters to Mr Milburn,
the Times and anyone else for patients to use to remark upon their
inconvenience.

But the motion as proposed is stupid, duplicitous, and inneffective.
I am opposed to it.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%