UK Parliament / Open data

Health and Social Care Bill

Proceeding contribution from Simon Burns (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 31 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
When NHS funding has reached the European average, but the outcomes for care have not; when doctors are seeking to improve the quality of care but are hindered by politically imposed targets; and when the defence of bureaucracy is put above front-line services, we know that something has gone very wrong. That is why the coalition Government will act, act now and act with determination to improve and modernise our national health service. The Bill will create an NHS that puts patients first, that frees clinicians to deliver the best and most innovative care they can, and that focuses on what matters most to patients—health outcomes. This has been an interesting debate, although at times, sadly, not a well informed one. I begin, however, by congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on her fluent debut speech in the Chamber. I wish her every success in her future contributions, although I warn her that she will not get such a quiet ride next time around. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) on an interesting and incisive speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). The latter has great experience, having worked in the NHS. I wish also to congratulate a number of my other hon. Friends on interesting contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—we will certainly write to him with answers to his questions—for Winchester (Mr Brine) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). It is always a delight to listen to the Member who, I suspect, is probably best described as the old Labour dinosaur, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I also enjoyed the elegant contribution of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). Having listened to his fluent speech, all that I can say is, what a difference opposition makes. It is interesting that what he supported as part of a Labour Government in power he now seems to have abandoned in opposition. The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) asked a number of intricate questions, and given the time that I have, I promise that I will write to him with answers to all of them. Hon. Members might find it helpful if I debunk a few of the myths that have sprung up about our plans to modernise the NHS. The first, and perhaps the most insidious, is that they were kept secret and hidden from the electorate. Quite frankly, that is palpable nonsense. In June 2007, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, when in opposition, published the Conservative party's white paper, ““NHS Autonomy and Accountability””. It laid out our clear intentions, which we reiterated on pages 45 and 46 of our election manifesto. We said, as a commitment to the British people, that we would"““give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards, within NHS prices. This includes independent, voluntary and community sector providers.””" We stated that we would"““strengthen the power of GPs...by...putting them in charge of commissioning local health services””" and"““set NHS providers free to innovate by ensuring that they become autonomous Foundation Trusts””." We also stated that we would create an independent NHS board. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that we did not tell the British people our plans both before and during the election campaign. A second myth is that our plans to modernise the NHS are revolutionary. In fact they are evolutionary and an extension of the policies of previous Administrations, notably the Blair and Brown Governments. That is particularly true of the move towards the ““any willing provider”” principle and patient choice. In 2003, when the Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn moved to introduce a plurality of providers and patient choice, he argued that"““the NHS cannot be run forever like a 1940s-style nationalised industry””." He was right. The NHS needs the constant drive of improvements to raise standards and improve outcomes. More recently—perhaps Opposition Members would like to listen to this—in 2007, the Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), gave evidence to the Liaison Committee. He stated:"““We have been asking in people from the private sector to review what we can do to give them a better chance to compete for ""contracts...so the independent sector increases its role, will continue to increase its role and, in a wider and broader range of areas, will have a bigger role in the years to come.””" He said:"““The test at the end of the day is not private versus public, it is value for money, and it is not dogmatic to support one against the other.””" In 2008, he said:"““We will continue to open up acute care with…choice of hospitals trusts across private and public sectors in England…including more than 150 private sector hospitals working as part of the NHS and at NHS cost and standards of quality. We will use all mechanisms available to us to improve our NHS—public, private and voluntary providers can all play their part””." This Government have also been falsely accused of wanting somehow to privatise the NHS. Privatisation is defined as making people pay for their health care. That is not going to happen under this Government. This Government are totally committed to the values of the NHS: paid for through general taxation; free at the point of need; and always based on clinical need and never on a person's ability to pay. Others have erroneously claimed that any involvement of the private sector will undermine the public sector ethos. That is a rather surprising view, considering that it was the last Labour Government who embraced the private sector. I shall quote Dr Howard Stoate, who was recently elected chair of Bexley's shadow GP consortium. Opposition Members will remember that, until the last election, he was the Labour Member of Parliament for Dartford. In a recent article in The Guardian, he said:"““We have found the idea that services can be offered by any willing provider can actually strengthen the ethos of the NHS rather than weaken it.””" Dr Stoate went on to say that, in his experience, GPs"““reveal overwhelming enthusiasm for the chance to help shape services for the patients they see daily…Far from miring GPs in bureaucracy...GP commissioning can free them to operate more effectively.””" This Government have one simple objective for the NHS. That is that it should give patients health outcomes that are consistently among the very best in the world, including higher survival rates, greater clinical effectiveness and safer care for patients. Excellence cannot be delivered by having Ministers bark orders down the chain of command. It is done by encouraging innovation and creativity, and by putting the interests of patients ahead of the system and of tomorrow's headlines. We will free local clinicians to use their expertise to shape local services. We will free patients to choose the best possible care for their specific needs. We will bring a culture of openness and transparency to the health service, and we will allow any willing provider to compete to provide the best patient care. These plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive, and they will deliver care that is free at the point of use for all. They will build on the best of what has gone before. Some say that the reorganisation of the national health service will cost £3 billion, but that is factually incorrect. The impact assessment shows that there will be a one-off cost of £1.4 billion. It also demonstrates how the changes will pay for themselves by 2012-13, saving £5.2 billion by the end of this Parliament. They will continue to save £1.7 billion in every year after that, up to the end of the decade. Every penny of those savings—the equivalent of 40,000 extra nurses, or 17,000 extra doctors or 11,000 extra consultants every year—will be completely and totally reinvested in front-line services, not wasted on back-office costs. As society evolves, so too must the NHS. The Bill will deliver a modern NHS fit for the 21st century. It is the natural progression of the original vision to deliver the finest health care for all our citizens, remaining true to the founding principles set out by Nye Bevan. Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 235.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
522 c697-700 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top