Select Committee on Public Accounts Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Letter from the NHS Executive to the Clerk of the Committee (PAC 2000-01/79)

  Further to my letter of 21 February on behalf of Mr Crisp and Mr Gorham, it has come to my attention that the answer given at the second paragraph of Question 191 was incorrect. An analysis of the figures had been given to the National Blood Authority. Can I ask you therefore, to disregard the original answer for Question 191 and replace it with the following:

  Question 191: Can you explain the apparent inconsistency between Figure 11 showing significant net in-flows of blood to London and the South East from the other NBS regions in 1999, and the finding in NAO's attitude survey that, compared with the general population, recent donors are more likely to be Londoners than people in other regions?

  There is no necessary or direct relationship between stock movements (Fig 11) and donor potential and collections, and stock movements vary year on year. In 2000, for example, the net flow into the London and South East Zone was only slightly greater than into the Northern Zone. Historically in Midlands and South West the donor potential and collection capability has always exceeded local demand.

  The recent survey shows Londoners are disproportionately represented among recent donors. However, London is also a disproportionately heavy consumer of blood because of the preponderance of large acute hospitals.

Martin G Sturges
NHS Executive

28 February 2001

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 11 July 2001