Unison says handling of NHS England abolition announcement 'shambolic'
--------------------------------------------------------------------

**Unison**, which describes itself as the largest healthcare union in the UK, has described the announcement about the abolition of NHS England as “shambolic”. Christina McAnea, its general secretary, said:

> “The health service needs thousands more staff and to be able to hold on to experienced employees. At the moment, it’s struggling to do that. Giving staff a decent pay rise would help no end.
> 
> But this announcement will have left NHS England staff reeling. Just days ago they learned their numbers were to be slashed by half, now they discover their employer will cease to exist.
> 
> The way the news of the axing has been handled is nothing short of shambolic. It could surely have been managed in a more sympathetic way.

Asked if he was angry about this, O’Donnell said:

> This is really damaging the prime minister and what he wants to achieve because, believe it or not, if you talk to civil servants and say they like managing decline and that you’re going to take a chainsaw to them, do you think that’s actually going to result in them forming of their best?

**Peter Kyle**, the science and technology secretary, has asked ChatGPT for advice on a range of work-related issues, including why British businesses are not adopting artificial intelligence and what podcasts he should appear on.

**John Swinney**, Scotland’s first minister, has hosted a “warm” meeting with Donald Trump’s son Eric in Edinburgh, days after the US president’s golf course at Turnberry was targeted by protesters.

**Sarah Woolnough**, chief executive of the King’s Fund, said:

> Today’s announcement lands on the same day that NHS stats show people continue to wait days in A&E and many patients remain stuck in hospital beds despite being well enough to leave. The most important question is how will the abolition of NHS England make it easier for people to get a GP appointment, shorten waits for planned care and improve people’s health? That hasn’t yet been set out – ministers will need to explain how the prize will be worth the price.
> 
> It is absolutely right that democratically elected politicians must have clear oversight of how the NHS delivers for patients and spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money. It is also reasonable to want to deliver better value by reducing duplication and waste between two national bodies where they are performing a similar role. It is true that over its just over a decade of existence, NHS England has been asked to take on a lot more additional power, functions and therefore staff, than it was originally designed to do.
> 
> Having now made the decision to abolish NHS England, and while we still wait for the publication of the NHS 10 Year Plan, the government must be clear why this significant structural change at this time is necessary, and how it fits into their wider plans. The potential cost savings would be minimal in the context of the entire NHS budget, and so they must ensure that the changes produce the improved effectiveness which is sought by making this change.

**Denis Campbell**, the Guardian’s health policy editor, is also sceptical about the need to abolish NHS England. He has posted these .

> There is some logic in bringing the workings of NHS England and the government more closely together – for example, to help provide clarity to the health service on priorities for improvement. And – in reality – it is impossible to take politics out of the NHS.
> 
> But history tells us that rejigging NHS organisations is hugely distracting and rarely delivers the benefits politicians expect. Scrapping NHS England completely will cause disruption and divert time and energy of senior leaders at a time when attention should be focused on improving care for patients. It will also eat up the time of ministers, with new legislation likely needed.

**Jakub Krupa**, the Guardian’s chief executive at the Institute for Government, is also sceptical about the need to abolish NHS England. He has posted these .

> There’s a decent case for scrapping NHS England but doing so is a major change programme that will take up substantial ministerial and official time. Hard to see how govt can do this while also making good progress on meeting the 18 week target AND the three shifts ahead of the next election.
> 
> All of the problems cited have been evident for years. Why has it taken 9 months in office for Labour to make such a monumental decision?
> 
> Streeting has just told the Commons that while much of this can be done without legislation, a bill is needed. And that the whole process of merging DHSC and NHSE is likely to take 2 years. Even if it’s the right long term decision this will be hugely disruptive in the short term.
```