Emergency debate on risks posed by NHS bill
Labour secures an emergency debate on the NHS bill – in a move that could further delay the passage of the legislation through parliament.
Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham argues that the bill should be delayed until the government publishes an internal assessment of the risks posed by the reforms to the NHS in England.
Mr Burnham told the Commons on Monday: “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.”
On Monday, the bill faced its final test in the Lords, where it had already been heavily amended.
Opposition
Opposition to the bill, or parts of it, is not just confined to parliament. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Midwives and the Faculty of Public Health are all opposed to the legislation.
The 90-minute debate on Tuesday will give MPs the chance to decide if the transition risk register document should be published before the Commons considers Lords amendments to the bill.
The information commissioner has ruled the document should be released, and a tribunal upheld the decision after an appeal by the government to block its publication.
Delay would be wrong and wholly unwarranted. Earl Howe, Health Minister
Mr Burnham’s call for an emergency debate was not opposed by MPs from other parties. He said: “In just 24 hours’ time, this house will be asked to agree far-reaching changes to the NHS in England drawn up, in the large part, in the other place (the Lords).
“As of now, members find themselves in the highly unsatisfactory position of not being in possession of all relevant information needed to make a full and considered judgment on whether those changes should be allowed to proceed.”
On Monday, Lord Owen, the independent crossbench peer and co-founder of the Social Democratic Party, put forward an amendment that would have delayed the third reading of the bill until the Lords had been given a chance to consider the tribunal’s conclusions and the government’s response. The amendment was defeated.
Health Minister Earl Howe said: “Delay would be wrong and wholly unwarranted. The NHS needs certainty – the certainty of the bill being on the statute book.”
Tumultuous
The NHS bill has had a tumultuous time in parliament since it was first published in white paper form in July 2010. To appease his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, David Cameron agreed to a pause in its passage and further consultation.
Professor Steve Field was asked to liaise with doctors, nurses and other NHS professionals and develop proposals to improve the bill. The government accepted the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum, chaired by Professor Field.
Originally, the government proposed that GPs should be responsible for commissioning care for their patients. The forum ensured that hospital doctors and nurses will also be involved in the commissioning process.
The regulator Monitor was to be given powers to combat anti-competitive behaviour in the new NHS. After fears were raised about the commercialisation of the NHS, the government accepted that Monitor’s primary duty should become the protection and promotion of patients’ interests.
It has been made clear that competition will be based on quality, not price. Originally, competition was going to be opened up to “any willing provider”; this has been changed to “any qualified provider”.
It was envisaged that the health secretary would be responsible for promoting, rather than providing, health services. The government agreed to change this to make it clear that the health secretary is ultimately accountable for the NHS.
