There is much disquiet and concern among health professionals about the speed and scale of the reforms outlined in the Bill, with various respected organisations warning that they are a ““significant risk”” and ““could be disastrous””.
It is important to see the Government's plans in the context of the progress and the health legacy that this Tory-led Government inherited from Labour—patient satisfaction in the NHS at record levels, a world-class public service transformed by Labour, record numbers of doctors and nurses, and new hospitals. Contrary to some of the claims from the Government Benches about the statistics, survival rates for the most serious conditions are improving, and we will have the lowest mortality rates of any European country for heart disease by next year. The Government would do well to recognise this progress.
One of the Government's central arguments is that massive restructuring is necessary to drive efficiencies in the NHS. I beg to differ. By overhauling the system, the Government are putting at risk the very drive for efficiencies that we support. According to the Royal Society of Physicians,"““Achieving both efficiency savings and reorganisation simultaneously will be an unprecedented challenge for both commissioners and providers””."
In government we recognised the efficiency challenges that we faced in the NHS. That is why in the last Labour Budget the Department of Health committed to £4.35 billion of savings over two years, with a further commitment to save £20 billion in the next five years. We demanded that primary care trusts reduce their management costs by 30% over a three-year period. The choice between doing nothing or modernising the NHS is a false choice, as I think the Government know.
Evidence from the previous reorganisation suggests that the disruption will extend well beyond the period of the reform. Even one of the Government's Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), a GP herself, has said:"““To my mind, it felt a bit like someone had tossed a grenade into the PCTs. These people have so much uncertainty about their position that they are haemorrhaging in a rather uncontrolled fashion.””"
The transition process is not only disruptive, but will undermine efficiency and quality. This risk was recognised by the National Audit Office in its report, where it said that the previous government's initiative, the so-called quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme, is at risk because of the overhaul proposed by the present Government. What is more, their obsession with driving down costs using price competition carries a very real risk of decline in the quality of care, according to professional organisations such the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives.
Health and Social Care Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Emma Reynolds
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 31 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
522 c665-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:12:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_708344
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_708344
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_708344