|
|
Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats:Covering the constituencies of Twickenham and Richmond Park |
Pugh, Birtwistle and Hancock quiz Lansley
April 6, 2011 5:19 PM
• [Apr 04] John Pugh (Southport, Liberal Democrat): I THANK the Secretary of State for having the grace and courage to respond to legitimate concerns. Given the agreement that exists in the House-not about the effects of the Bill, on which there is no agreement, but about its aims-does he agree that we should not get hung up about whether substantial changes will in future be referred to as "tweaking", "surgery" or, possibly, "surgical tweaking"? Is not the main thing to get a Bill that carries the broad support of Parliament, NHS professionals and the country? We do not need to sell this Bill better; we need to take the spectre of salesmanship out of the NHS.
774)
Andrew Lansley (Secretary of State, Health; South Cambridgeshire, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman and I know one another well enough to know that we share a commitment to the NHS and that I am determined. Perhaps I sometimes get very close to all of this because I am very close to the NHS. I spend my time thinking about this subject and I spend my time with people in the service. I spend my time trying to ensure that the Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right for people in the NHS-they want to be free. The British Medical Association made it clear that it wants an end to constant political interference in the NHS. We can do that only if we secure the necessary autonomy for the NHS, and if we make accountability transparent, rather than having constant interference from this place or from Richmond house.
. . Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley, Liberal Democrat): The Secretary of State is aware that under the Labour Government, accident and emergency and children's services were transferred from Burnley to Blackburn. The transfer was opposed by the majority of GPs and 95% of the local community. It was supported only by the bureaucrats in the PCT and the SHA and by prima donna consultants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his new proposals that will never happen again and that such decisions will be taken only following full consultation and agreement with GPs and local communities, rather than being driven through as they were by the previous Government?
776)
Andrew Lansley (Secretary of State, Health; South Cambridgeshire, Conservative): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In Burnley and other places-I think not least of Maidstone-decisions were made in the past, under a Labour Government, that clearly did not meet the tests that we now apply, which are about public engagement, the support of the local authority, engagement with general practices leading commissioning, the clinical case and the responsiveness to patient choice. Those tests will be met in future. As we go through the painful process of examining how they are applied to the situations that we have inherited, on occasion we can say things to help colleagues, but sometimes we cannot.
776)
[10579
. . Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat): As the Secretary of State will be aware, I chaired the majority of the Public Bill Committee's sittings. It was the longest Bill Committee for 12 years. During that time, more than 100 amendments were voted on in formal Divisions, and many hundreds of others were agreed to. If we are taking several months to look at this again, how on earth will the time be found to ensure that this House has enough time to scrutinise properly any changes, bearing in mind how much time has been spent on the Bill as it stands? I want an assurance, as I hope the whole House does, that we will be given sufficient time and that the Bill will not be steamrollered or bulldozed through the House.
780)
Andrew Lansley (Secretary of State, Health; South Cambridgeshire, Conservative): I know that the whole Committee will have been grateful to my hon. Friend for his chairmanship, because what was achieved in Committee, as was acknowledged by Derek Twigg, was that every inch of the Bill was scrutinised. It is our intention to secure proper scrutiny for any changes that result from our engagement.
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats