Following revelations at a Stockport hospital a recent poll on the Express website asked if the NHS should spend more on hospital security. More taxpayers’ money is the default answer to any public service issue.

Whenever standards slip there’s an automatic assumption the cure lies in increased funding, usually accompanied by an underlying threat that the public will suffer unless it’s forthcoming.

Take the case of Gordon Thornton whose family received a five-figure out of court settlement from East Cheshire NHS Trust after locum doctor Nemesio Gomez-Estanconi was found guilty of misconduct and struck off the medical register.

Dr Gomez-Estanconi mistook Mr Thomson’s terminal throat cancer for a sore throat sending him home with a mouthwash. Mr Thornton’s brother subsequently learned that Dr Gomez-Estanconi was never interviewed before his recruitment through an agency after a CV check.

A trust spokesman said their checks were ‘within the law’. What they didn’t say was that they were sufficiently inadequate to allow a locum doctor to seriously mistreat six patients within 13 days. Apart from the distress, trauma and suffering caused to patients this failure resulted in a five-figure payout. How many services can be saved with better recruiting practices? I doubt the question will be asked.

Last month Lorraine Butcher, the head of CEC’s services for children and families, apologised to children whose lives were made a misery by Prestbury woman, Dr Jill Newcombe-Buley, who is now in prison. Ms Butcher said she accepted there had been ‘systemic failures’ adding more than £6m had been invested to improve care. Of course mistakes happen, but they appear to repeat themselves with unerring regularity. How many times are we to be told ‘lessons have been learned?’ I’ve been listening to that since I was a child. How many £6m investments do we have to make to solve the same problems?

As we have seen on several occasions public services have a great love of ‘gardening leave’. It enables management to sweep blunders away, often paying executives their salaries in full before quietly sliding them out the side door.

I recall a hospital consultant whose leave (on full pay) was longer than his actual service and several police officers suspended for over three years for which the public paid.

We don’t hear too many chief executives or chief constables suggesting an end to this practice. So, yes, when I hear the only way to maintain public services is to hit taxpayers I am sceptical.

Of course some improvements need additional funding but not all. Money is not the panacea for every problem. Sometimes less is more. Sometimes three managers accepting responsibility are better than six passing the buck. Don’t be taken in by the automatic assumption that taking more of your money is the answer to improved services.

How efficient have public services been with the enormous sums spent on Information Technology?

Sadly, managers who do point out inefficiencies, waste and poor performance rarely make it to the top. They are usually suspended (on full pay).