[B]Labour have forced a Commons debate on whether Parliament can consider planned NHS changes for a final time before an assessment of the potential risks to the health service is published.
[/B]It will take place on Tuesday after being granted by Speaker John Bercow.
[B]
Critics are attempting to scupper the Health and Social Care Bill - currently in its final stages in the Lords.
[/B]The government has agreed to a series of changes to the bill and [B]want it to become law as soon as possible[/B].
The legislation would abolish Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts and give much greater control over care budgets and commissioning decisions to GPs and other health professionals.
The bill has been the subject of a prolonged battle over the past year - with [B]professional bodies representing doctors, nurses and other NHS workers resisting the changes[/B].
Opponents are staging a last-ditch attempt to try and delay the bill, saying the financial implications of the changes to the NHS must be properly considered.
The Freedom of Information Tribunal recently upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner that the NHS transitional risk register must be published. The government have said they will not do so until the tribunal has explained its ruling.
Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said it was "highly unsatisfactory" that MPs would not have an opportunity to consider the information in the register before finally approving the bill.
"[B]Parliament has a right to know, before it is asked to make a final judgment that will have huge implications for every person in this country,[/B]" he told MPs.
In the Lords, crossbench peer Lord Owen called for a similar delay to the bill's third reading in the Upper House pending the publication of the document.
[B]The registers were drawn up to calculate the risks relating to the implementation of the bill.[/B]
Ministers say some of the details have already been published in [URL="http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_123583"]impact assessments[/URL] and that[B] publishing the entire registers would flout a fundamental principle that advice by officials given in confidence should be protected[/B].
Speaking in the Lords, health minister Earl Howe said the bill had been subject to more scrutiny than any other in recent times, with parliamentary debates of "unparalled duration and scope".
"I cannot accept for one moment that without sight of the transition risk register the House has somehow been denied a deep insight into what this bill means for the NHS. [B]It is an absurd proposition.[/B]"
Peers will later consider a series of amendments to the bill, including on the registration of health care support workers and the functions of the body due to replace the Health Protection Agency.
The government has made a series of concessions on the bill, to limit competition and clarify the powers and responsibilities of the secretary of state in relation to the health service, [B]but say it should now proceed.[/B]
[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vwz6P0HpkOo/T1ZGPCMmEaI/AAAAAAAAAHs/40z4ZeIXDuE/s1600/nhs-billboards-eye-thin-600.jpg0[/IMG]
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17435159[/URL]
Emergency debate sounds so silly.
"We must act immediately!
--After we debate incessantly about it, of course."
[QUOTE]"I cannot accept for one moment that without sight of the transition risk register the House has somehow been denied a deep insight into what this bill means for the NHS. It is an absurd proposition."[/QUOTE]
I've read as much as I can about the changes and really, nothing seems 'absurd' to me.. It's as if they're opposing it just because it's Conservatives. If Labour did this I bet they'd have a completely different attitude.
The changes are ridiculous. The majority of people are against them (>50%) along with far more than a majority of the people affected by it (Doctors, GPs, nurses.)
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;35204993]I've read as much as I can about the changes and really, nothing seems 'absurd' to me.. It's as if they're opposing it just because it's Conservatives. If Labour did this I bet they'd have a completely different attitude.[/QUOTE]
No they're opposing thme because it doesn't work. GP's don't want to have to make financial decisions, they're doctors not accountants.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35205439]No they're opposing thme because it doesn't work. GP's don't want to have to make financial decisions, they're doctors not accountants.[/QUOTE]
Nobody said that doctors have to make financial decisions at all, the idea is that they take on managers, a lot of which can come from roles which are being made redundant, or they can hire a private company to manage it. It's entirely up to them if they want to manage themselves and whether they're able to do that.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;35206087]Nobody said that doctors have to make financial decisions at all, the idea is that they take on managers, a lot of which can come from roles which are being made redundant, or they can hire a [b]private company[/b] to manage it. It's entirely up to them if they want to manage themselves and whether they're able to do that.[/QUOTE]
And there's another problem, they're slowly but surely trying to privatise our healthcare.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35206160]And there's another problem, they're slowly but surely trying to privatise our healthcare.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing wrong with having parts of the NHS privatised, and it won't ever be fully privatised. Having parts of the NHS manage themselves according to their situation is much more efficient than having one board of people broadly managing everything.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;35206160]And there's another problem, they're slowly but surely trying to privatise our healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Where do you think hospitals get their resources from? Medical gas, water, electricity, medical supplies, equipment etc.? It's all from private companies. There is no way ever that the NHS cannot rely on private companies for it to run.
Not only that but getting rid of 15,000 managers is a bloody good thing, if doctors can decide what resources they need then that's a lot of money being saved.
Also I think the most brilliant thing about Labour's opposition is that in 1997 they began a policy of allowing private companies to build and run hospitals;
[quote]Labour achieved a change that, had it been attempted by the Conservatives, would have faced immense opposition. Private sector organisations came to build and operate hospitals under the public/private partnerships, and to run clinical services such as Independent Treatment Centres and some NHS Walk-in Centres[/quote]
[QUOTE=RO;35208129]Where do you think hospitals get their resources from? Medical gas, water, electricity, medical supplies, equipment etc.? It's all from private companies. There is no way ever that the NHS cannot rely on private companies for it to run.
Not only that but getting rid of 15,000 managers is a bloody good thing, if doctors can decide what resources they need then that's a lot of money being saved.
Also I think the most brilliant thing about Labour's opposition is that in 2008 they began a policy of allowing private companies to build and run hospitals;[/QUOTE]
thats about private companies financing the NHS in return for long term loans and bonds, completely different.
if any of you actually think this legislation is good, then no wonder we have such a shit leader at the moment, and god help us in the next elections
[QUOTE=Bobie;35208185]thats about private companies financing the NHS in return for long term loans and bonds, completely different.
if any of you actually think this legislation is good, then no wonder we have such a shit leader at the moment, and god help us in the next elections[/QUOTE]
A private company would not enter a PPP agreement if there was no profit to be made, so no it is not 'completely different'. The bill increases the percentage of money made through private companies which was pre-existing to this bill. Not only that but surely health professionals are the best suited to managing hospitals and surgeries not managers?
Also when the NHS was first created it was opposed to be GPs and nurses, just like every change to the public sector is always opposed by unions and it's workers.
[QUOTE=RO;35208129]Also I think the most brilliant thing about Labour's opposition is that in 1997 they began a policy of allowing private companies to build and run hospitals;[/QUOTE]
That's a bit different to what's happening here. Making the public service more private is not the same as letting private companies set up a hospital as using and paying for them is optional.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35208362]That's a bit different to what's happening here. Making the public service more private is not the same as letting private companies set up a hospital as using and paying for them is optional.[/QUOTE]
But the bottom line is that through both private companies are profiteering from it
[QUOTE=RO;35208333]A private company would not enter a PPP agreement if there was no profit to be made, so no it is not 'completely different'[/QUOTE]
PFIs were thought up by the Torys prior to 1997. Labour then for some decision went through with them, and PFIs have shown themselves to be terrible. Sure, the private company makes money but it also fucks over the hospital/trust with huge amounts of debt and delivers sub-par service to patients.
[QUOTE=RO;35208485]But the bottom line is that through both private companies are profiteering from it[/QUOTE]
then why the hell support more profiteering
[QUOTE=Bobie;35208605]then why the hell support more profiteering[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Camundongo;35208541]PFIs were thought up by the Torys prior to 1997. Labour then for some decision went through with them, and PFIs have shown themselves to be terrible. Sure, the private company makes money but it also fucks over the hospital/trust with huge amounts of debt and delivers sub-par service to patients.[/QUOTE]
I know that, but it seems that privatisation of the healthcare service seems to be pinned to the conservatives by labour so much when they themselves have supported private profiteering from it, I was also making the point that to an extent there has to be private intervention with the NHS.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a huge fan of these reforms, I think they're rushed and clumsy but reform is needed within the NHS, especially with the country's deficit problems and the issue of having an ageing population, but fuck if I know how to fix it..
[QUOTE=RO;35208728]I know that, but it seems that privatisation of the healthcare service seems to be pinned to the conservatives by labour so much when they themselves have supported private profiteering from it, I was also making the point that to an extent there has to be private intervention with the NHS.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a huge fan of these reforms, I think they're rushed and clumsy but reform is needed within the NHS, especially with the country's deficit problems and the issue of having an ageing population, but fuck if I know how to fix it..[/QUOTE]
I think the major problem is, much like our education, the plan and outline for it gets changed every time we have change government. We need all the parties (or at least the major ones) and all the professional and patient bodies to sit round a table and lay out a long term road plan for the NHS that everyone can agree on. Not just rush half-arsed legislation that large amounts of people do not agree with, something both Labour and Tory governments alike are guilty of.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
