Home » Posts tagged 'NHA Party'
Tag Archives: NHA Party
Why the National Health Action Party doesn't need its own 'Country Club Bore'
There is apparently a consensus around Westminster circles that Nigel Farage is ‘the Country Club bore’, a slightly red-faced jovial, charismatic man who doesn’t particularly mind speaking shit.
While such people appear pleasant, often their messages are not entirely trivial. The same criticism has been made of ‘Bungling Bojo’ i.e. Boris Johnson, that behind the buffoonery there is quite an incisive mind who politically astute. The Left, which has been accused previously of lacking a sense of humour by notorious funnyman Jeremy Clarkson, appears not to have its own ‘nice buffoon’. Maybe it’s because buffoons are supposed to have posh accents and smile a lot – though Tony Blair did have a posh accent, and smile a lot.
UKIP policies simply don’t add up. I have previously thought that UKIP could equally appeal to the left, in that Labour also has a proud history of wishing to leave Europe. The recent accusation that ‘UKIP means “racists for posh people” has been violently criticised by UKIP who cite that the last thing that they are are racist (either even having members from ethnic minorities themselves, or having members who are married to people from abroad.) They don’t have a single MP, and yet they are given a huge amount of air time. People often joke on Twitter that tonight it is ‘Nigel Farage Nigel Farage Nigel Farage Nigel Farage Nigel Farage #BBCQT”.
Emulating the secret of Nigel Farage is, though, difficult if you’re a “single issue party”. Nigel Farage is very different to Caroline Lucas, or Natalie Bennett. One suspects you would never get Nigel Farage voting against the section 75 NHS regulations, even though one also suspects that Farage wouldn’t know what these regulations are even if his life depended on them. However, Nigel Farage has been an effective ‘Trojan horse’ for getting his immigration issues a lot of air time. The National Health Action Party would probably love to have the media dominance which has been secured by UKIP, but the last thing the National Health Action Party needs at this time their own equivalent of a ‘Country Club Bore’.
However, the National Health Action Party, I feel, should think carefully about what sort of impression they wish to create. There is a huge amount of goodwill and affection to the NHS from traditional voters of all parties, and Dr Clive Peedell and Dr Richard Taylor could not do much worse than to present themselves as a modern day Alec Douglas-Home. The patrician view of the NHS consultant, who spends most of his time on the golf course (which is of course completely untrue), would go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
Also, it has a very serious dialogue to have with the electorate, on the future of the NHS, who “owns it”, who it “works for”, and who is deciding policy for it. The enactment of the Health and Social Care Act (2012) was one of the most disastrous steps to increase the democratic deficit ever to take place in England, when it became clear that this current Government is much more interested in having behind-closed-doors conversations with private healthcare providers than members of the medical Royal Colleges or the BMA, for example. Sure, the the National Health Action Party needs to represent faithfully the views of all healthcare professionals including nurses, as well as Doctors, but it also needs to represent ordinary members of the general public. Dressing up in theatre scrubs or donning a medical stethoscope, akin to a low-budget RAG project, may not be the best way to project a serious image, but the election in Eastleigh was a real eye-opener in how the media could completely ignore NHS issues.
Whilst it is tempting to spend a lot of time and energy in wondering why the BBC have steadfastly refused to cover the NHS reforms, to be frank the discussion of the NHS’ journey of late has been scant and pathetic for a very long time. Members of the public are generally aware of the private finance initiative, but seem generally unaware of the major advances in this initiative during Major’s short stay in government. Likewise, people are generally unaware of the impact of NHS Foundation Trusts, what ‘efficiency savings’ are, or what the failure regimes of NHS hospitals means. The social media can do so much, and it is incredibly disheartening to hear Liberal Democrats whining in the House of Lords about how much ‘misinformation’ has emerged from the social media.
The basic issue is that the social media is the only mechanism many people have for discussing the NHS at all, and neutering this device is in nobody’s interest apart from powerful corporates. While the National Health Action Party may not have its equivalent of the “Country Club bore”, I am sure that they are putting maximum effort into thinking which seats they wish to target, what their core message is, what they feel the basic understanding of voters on issues to do with the NHS might be, how they’re going to get their message across, and what they feel their ideal outcome is. I think they should drag themselves away from the philosophy of the ‘focus group’ made popular by New Labour, but lead on what they think is right. This could include populist issues, of massive public policy concern, such as patient safety, which no traditional party has had a moral licence to pursue.
Chris Huhne, Lord Ashcroft, the Tories, the LibDems and the NHA Party: a perfect storm
The National Health Action Party (@NHAParty) have an excellent chance of winning Chris Huhne’s seat Eastleigh, and here’s the rub, the Conservatives’ very own Lord Ashcroft has provided an excellent explanation why.
Chris Huhne, Lord Ashcroft, the Tories, the LibDems and the NHA Party create a “perfect storm”:
This therefore shows the popularity of the Conservatives in decline, but not as massively in decline as the Liberal Democrats.
I certainly don’t think Eastleigh voters are unintelligent: I just think they’re incredibly badly informed.
According to Lord Ashcroft from recent polling evidence, “Conservatives lead on getting the economy growing and creating jobs, as well as dealing with the deficit. Moreover, voters tend to credit these policies to the Conservatives, not their junior partners. Overall, Cameron and Osborne are more trusted to run the economy than Miliband and Balls by a wide margin – but Lib Dem voters are no more likely to choose the government team when Nick Clegg is mentioned alongside his coalition colleagues. If voters see the campaign in terms of national issues, then, the Conservatives are in a very strong position.”
That Eastleigh voters care about national issues is of massive interest. The general election in 2015 is likely to turn the phrase ‘it’s the economy stupid’ on its head, as ordinary voters prioritise what is happening in the NHS as important. This is of no surprise with Labour and the Conservatives having rewarded failure in a management based culture, where people such as Sir David Nicholson and his ‘set’ have been winners, despite deaths estimated in the region of 400-1200 at Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust.
It is a barefaced lie that the “deficit has been cut by a quarter”, and this is borne out from many different sources which are dead easy to Google. The most recent figures show that current borrowing has fallen by just 6.4 per cent since 2010, while net borrowing has fallen by 18.3 per cent. The coalition reduced net borrowing by 24 per cent between 09/10 and 11/12 but only by slashing infrastructure spending by 42 per cent and tipping the UK into a double-dip recession and, perhaps, a triple-dip recession. The UK Statistics Authority have asked the Government not to repeat the fraudulent claim that NHS spending has gone up, but the Government has ignored their request.
So voting for the Conservatives on the strength of national issues such as the economy is total bunkum.
Even Lord Ashcroft provides himself an adequate explanation for why the NHA Party could in fact do extremely well:
“Despite their disdain for the established parties, voters are very reluctant to vote for independent candidates, however much they may like the idea in principle. Both the main parties could at least form a government, and will have policies in all areas that have some chance of being implemented. In practice, independent candidates largely serve as receptacles for protest votes.
Recent years offer two notable exceptions: in 2001, Dr Richard Taylor was elected in Wyre Forest on a platform of restoring the Accident & Emergency unit at Kidderminster Hospital, and in 1997 Martin Bell was elected in Tatton on a platform of not being Neil Hamilton. These examples show that for an independent candidate to win, they need an issue that is very local, very specific and very popular. They also need the connivance of at least one major party – Labour dropped out in Tatton, and the Liberal Democrats did not stand in either seat. None of these conditions are in place for Dr Peedell’s group.”
The NHS is continuously an important issue, and so is Chris Huhne.
Chris Huhne dramatically changed his plea this week by pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice over claims that his ex-wife Vicky Pryce took speeding points for him 10 years ago. The judiciary absolutely loathe the criminal offence of perverting the course of justice as it threatens the very foundations on which the English legal system is based.
In October 2012, it was reported that, through papers unearthed under the Freedom of Information Act showed, in June 2012 4.8 per cent of patients waited over six weeks for diagnostic tests, against a target of 1 per cent. “Capacity issues in endoscopy, ultrasound and cardiac tests have impacted performance significantly in June. This will incur some small contractual financial penalties for the foundation trust.”
A&E performance in 2011 was reported as extremely bad at Winchester and Eastleigh NHS Trust, where several target breaches around waiting times both for elective treatment and in its emergency department had been reported also. The acute trust was given a red rating for its time to initial assessment in accident and emergency, which was recorded at two hours and 19 minutes for the 95th percentile – against a target of 15 minutes. It was also over the target of a one-hour median wait to treatment, with an average of one hour and 21 minutes.
The NHA party candidacy at Eastleigh will also be a first electoral test for the government’s Health and Social Care Act, which was primarily drafted by the Conservatives on behalf of the corporate lobbyists, but driven through last April only with support from Liberal Democrats like Chris Huhne in the Commons and decisively in the Lords.
Party co-chair Clive Peedell (@cpeedell), a cancer specialist from Teesside, said:
“We believe the Eastleigh by-election offers a huge opportunity to radically alter the nature of our broken political system. For too long the three main political parties have betrayed the trust of the UK public in a tide of political sleaze and dishonesty.
The LibDems in particular have betrayed their grassroots supporters by supporting a Conservative-led coalition that is undermining and privatising our public services with no democratic mandate, and pushing forward an austerity package that will cause long-term damage to our country.”
Lord Owen's NHS (amended duties and powers) Bill: an eight-clause Bill to restore a comprehensive NHS accountable to parliament
As of early this morning (Tuesday 29 January 2013), the NHA Party and the UK Labour Party seem set to support Lord Owen’s NHS (amended duties and powers) Bill (“the Bill”), as described by Lord Owen himself here, yesterday.
The Health and Social Care Act (2012) ended the Secretary of State’s duty to secure or provide health services throughout the country, a duty that had been in force since 1948. Furthermore, the Act breaks up the universal system that has been effective over sixty years, and provides the NHS trademark for services outsourced to the private sector to maximise the shareholder dividend of those companies.
A major focus of Lord Owen’s Bill is undoubtedly its emphasis, as Lord Owen provides, to “secure a comprehensive, integrated health service”. The Bill in fact contains references to “comprehensive” in clauses 1,5 and 6. The definition of “comprehensive” in the Oxford English Dictionary is indeed a useful starting point, essentially described as “including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something“. “Comprehensive” therefore means for most people “all” or “nearly all”, and it’s a matter of interpretation what “nearly” is. This “nearly” aspect has been a slow-burn in policy, for example: “Labour’s national policy forum will debate a draft document on the NHS which contains references to a “largely” comprehensive and “overwhelmingly” free service.”
In March 2011, the NHS published its NHS Constitution, and a leading guiding principle is:
The NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief
This non-discriminatory aspect of provision of healthcare therefore emphasises equality.
Colin Leys in the Guardian has previously highlighted the effect of the Health and Social Care Act (2012) in deteriorating the comprehensiveness of the service:
Under the bill the range of what is available for free seems certain to contract further. Commissioning groups will have fixed budgets. The for-profit “support organisations” that are being lined up to do most of the commissioning for them will have a strong incentive to limit costs, and therefore the treatments to be paid for. CCGs also look likely to be free to decide that some treatments recommended by hospital specialists are “unreasonably” expensive, and refuse to pay for them, as health maintenance organisations do in the US.
A core of free NHS services will remain, but they will be of declining quality, because for-profit providers will cherry-pick the most profitable services. NHS hospitals will be left with the more costly work, so staffing levels and standards of care will be forced down and waiting times will get longer. To be sure of getting good healthcare people will increasingly take out private insurance, if they can afford it. At first most people will take out the cheaper insurance plans now on offer that cover just what is no longer free from the NHS, but gradually insurance for most forms of care will become normal. The poor will be left with a limited package of free services of lower quality.
What is available on the NHS should be determined nationally, in a transparent and democratic way, not by unelected local bodies. The bill will allow the secretary of state to deny responsibility when good, comprehensive, free care has become a thing of the past.
There are indications that services are being “scaled back”. For example, there have latterly been reports of impact on hearing services, for example:
NHS hearing services are being scaled back in England, an investigation by campaigners suggests.
Data obtained by Action on Hearing Loss from 128 hospitals found more than 40% had seen cuts in the past 18 months.
In particular, the study found evidence of rises in waiting times and reductions in follow-up care.
The report is the latest in a growing number to have suggested front-line care is being rationed as the health service struggles with finances.
The NHS is in the middle of a £20bn five-year savings drive.
The real question is of course how viable is it to have a totally NHS, which is “comprehensive” and “free-at-the-point-of-use”.
Even in the course of yesterday evening, this tweet of mine received 32 retweets, while most of my thread were (quite rightly) pre-occupied about the BBC Panorama documentary on disabled citizens and employment opportunities.
Prof Allyson Pollock and David Price explain the rationale for this urgent Bill as follows (see QMUL press release):
The Abolition of the democratic and legal basis for the NHS in England
The democratic and legal basis for the NHS in England was abolished by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The impact of this fundamental change is already being felt, ahead of the shift to the new market system in April 2013.
The Act ended the Secretary of State’s duty to secure or provide health services throughout the country, a duty that had been in force since 1948.
A minister may only be held to account legally for services that he or she is responsible for by law. In future, if we can’t get the health care we need, ministers won’t have to worry about being taken to court on this count, and there will be no Primary Care Trust to put pressure on. This means fewer rights for people in England to get the health care we need – at a time of unprecedented cuts and closures.
The Act breaks up the universal system that has served us for over sixty years, and reduces the NHS to a stream of taxpayer funds and a logo for the use of a range of public and corporate providers of services.
A House of Lords’ bill published this week will reinstate the Secretary of State’s legal duty to provide the NHS in England and the right of all of us in England to comprehensive and integrated health care.
By restoring the legal and democratic basis, the new National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill will ensure basic questions about citizens’ rights will continue to be determined democratically, as they should be.
This briefing explains what the government is doing and why an urgent bill to reinstate the NHS in England is required.
What does the government’s Act mean for me?
Cutting free NHS services
When the 2012 Act is implemented, the government will no longer be responsible for providing for our health care needs free of charge. The system of health care which has served all people throughout England for over sixty years is being dismantled and broken up. Instead a range of bodies, including for-profit companies, will decide which services will be freely available and who will receive them.
Currently many NHS services are being transferred to local authorities. They can bring in commercial companies to run them and the 2012 Act provides new charging powers. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill last year these services included[1]:
- immunization, cancer and cardiovascular screening
- mental health care
- dental public health
- public health
- sexual health services
- management of drug and alcohol addiction
- emergency planning and health protection service
- child health services.
Concerns were repeatedly raised during the passage of the Bill that some services would no longer required by law to be provided free of charge. These services included: [2]
- Services and facilities for pregnant women, women who are breast-feeding
- Services for both younger and older children
- Services for the prevention of illness
- Care of persons suffering from illness and their after-care
- Ambulance services
- Services for people with mental illness
- Dental public health services
- Sexual health services
Putting commercial companies in control
The Act also promotes more marketisation. More and more NHS services are being put out to tender to for-profit companies and taxpayer funds are being given to commercial corporations whilst publicly run health facilities are closed down.
As the 2012 Act is being implemented, corporations will have more say in determining our entitlement to free health services. In future, no single organisation will be responsible in our area for ensuring all our care. And it will no longer be clear who should be held accountable when things go wrong.
Our relationship with our doctor will change when for-profit companies run more services. As a patient we will no longer necessarily come first: how can we feel confident that our doctor is putting us first when he or she is a for-profit company employee?
Privatisation and marketization has increased in advance of the Act.
Some services, including those for the most vulnerable people in society, were last year contracted out to for-profit companies such as Virgin and Serco, which have little or no experience in delivering care. These include services for children with mental health problems and physical disabilities in Devon[3], and community nursing and health visitor services in Surrey[4] and Suffolk[5].
Many NHS hospitals are owned and operated under the expensive private finance initiative, creating serious financial problems for them and putting neighbouring hospitals and services at risk. For-profit companies and investors now control GP practices and other local health services. According to the Financial Times, Virgin already earns around £200 million a year by running more than 100 NHS services nationwide, including GP surgeries.[6] A private company registered in the Virgin Islands now manages the local hospital in Huntingdon, Hinchingbrooke NHS Trust.
The government is manufacturing a financial crisis in the NHS.
It is clear that the government is manufacturing a crisis, reducing the level of services and their quality, and shaking public confidence in the NHS. We are being encouraged to accept the principle that we will in future have to pay privately for services that were once free.
But claims that we can no longer afford the NHS are untrue.
The NHS is not over budget. Last year the NHS budget was underspent and £2 billion was returned to the Treasury.[7] Headline stories about hospital and other health service deficits only mean that resources are unfairly distributed not that the NHS is unaffordable overall.
Government claims that it is protecting the NHS budget are also untrue.
According to the official watchdog, the Statistics Authority: “expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10.”[8]
The NHS is being run as if it is in a financial crisis but this crisis is of the government’s making. Current plans for cutting NHS budgets, hospital beds and sacking thousands of vital NHS staff are based on documents drawn up by management consultancy firms including the US company, McKinsey & Co. The policy will lead to closure and hollowing out of public services and the creation of opportunities for an expanded market for private provision and the introduction of user charges.
The policy is fuelling cuts, closures and mergers on a scale that is unparalleled. There is no evidence to support change on this scale nor the unfair distribution of funds[9].
Cuts and closures
- In North West London the government plans to cut 25% of beds, and throughout London at least 7 accident and emergency departments will close[10], with further departments under threat. Up to 5600 jobs in North West London will be lost by 2015[11]. Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust is cutting 208 posts.[12]
- In Merseyside, 4000 NHS jobs will go by 2014[13]
- In South Yorkshire, Rotherham Hospital is set to lose 750 staff by 2015[14]
- In West Suffolk, Serco is planning to cut 137 Community Healthcare jobs.[15]
- In Devon and Exeter, the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust plans to cut 1115 full-time equivalent posts between 2011 and 2014.[16]
- In Greater Manchester, there are plans to downgrade Trafford General Hospital’s A&E to urgent care and cuts to intensive care, acute surgery and children’s services. [17] Maternity services have already closed.[18] Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust plans to cut 750 full-time posts by 2013. [19] Bolton NHS trust is making 500 redundancies.[20]
- In Warwickshire, the George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust plans to cut the equivalent of 257 full-time staff between 2010 and 2014.[21]
- In Cornwall, Royal Hospital Truro proposed to cut 400 jobs in 2011.[22]
- In Portsmouth, Queen Alexandra Hospital cut 700 jobs and shut 3 wards in 2011[23].
- Across England, twenty four out of thirty NHS Direct call centres will close[24]
- 6000 nursing posts have been cut since the coalition came to power in 2010.[25]
Mergers
Hospital mergers reduce services and increase waiting times and travel distances.
- Merger with North Tees was followed by closure of A & E in Hartlepool in August 2011[26]
- Merger of South London trust is followed by recommendation of closure of Lewisham hospital A&E. [27]
- Merger of Queen Mary’s Sidcup NHS Trust (QMS), Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust (QEH) and Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust (BHT) to create a single hospital on several sites in 2009 was followed by closure of Queen Mary’s A&E and labour unit in 2010.[28]
- Merger of Norfolk and Waveney and Suffolk mental health trusts was followed by cuts in beds for acute mental illness and community mental health teams[29]
- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS trust currently plans a merger which is likely to result in closure of A&E, maternity and paediatric services [30].
- Merger resulted in closure of Trafford General Maternity Unit in 2010[31] and A&E is threatened.[32]
- Merger with Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley (BHRV) NHS Trust in 2003 was followed by closure of Burnley A&E in 2008[33] and the paediatric inpatient ward in 2010[34].
- Merger resulted in closure of Rochdale Infirmary, Greater Manchester A&E in 2011[35].
Why a Bill is needed to reverse the worst aspects of the Act?
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 must be changed because it removes the democratic and legal basis of the NHS at a time when services are being cut and reconfigured on an unprecedented scale.
The NHS was created in 1948 by a law requiring the secretary of state to fund and provide all medical, dental and nursing care to the whole population on an equitable basis throughout the country. This duty has been abolished.
The government has no mandate for this Act. We did not vote for the abolition of our NHS. Neither was it a part of the coalition agreement. Unlike England, citizens of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will continue to have a NHS.
The purpose and limitations of the urgent Bill
The proposed legislation restores the legal and democratic basis of the NHS and the citizens’ rights ultimately to hold the Secretary of State to account. It will restore the Secretary of State’s duty to provide the NHS in England and gives him or her ministerial powers of direction and planning in order that the duty can be properly discharged.
Specifically, the Bill will:
- reinstate the secretary of state’s duty to provide health services that was formerly contained within sections 1 and 3 of the NHS Act 2006;
- subject all NHS bodies and bodies providing services for the NHS to ministerial direction;
- repeal the duty of autonomy and restore sufficient ministerial control over provision consistent with the secretary of state’s overarching duty to provide health services to the whole of England; and
- give Monitor an objective, so that its purpose is to help deliver the NHS.
The Bill will not require further reorganization when it is passed.
Allyson M Pollock (Professor of Public health research and policy,
David Price (Senior Research Fellow)
Global health, policy and innovation unit
Centre for Primary Care and Public Health
Queen Mary, University of London
58 Turner St, London E1 2AB and R
[1] Pollock AM, Price, DP, Roderick, P. How the Health and Social care Bill2011 would end entitlement to comprehensive health care in England
January 26, 2012 DOI:10.1016/S0140- 6736(12)60119-6
[2] Pollock AM, Price D, Roderick P. Health an social care Bill 2011: a legal basis for charging and providing fewer health services to people in England. BMJ 2012;344:1729- 82
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9176733/NHS-patients-to-be-treated-by-Virgin-Care-in-500m-deal.html
[7] Department of Health: Securing the future financial sustainability of the NHS, Sixteenth Report of Session 2012–13, House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/389/389.pdf
[8] Andrew Dilnot, (Chair of the UK Statistics Authority) Letter to Right Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, dated 4th December 2012, http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk
[9] ‘Can governments do it better? Merger mania and hospital outcomes in the English NHS’, M Gaynor, M Laudicella and C Propper, CMPO working paper 12/281 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2012/wp281.pdf
[10] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200339/NHS-Cuts–Savage-consequences-revealed-pensioner-waits-6-hours-ambulance.html
[11] http://www.healthemergency.org.uk/breakingnews.php Tuesday 23rd October 2012
[12] http://www.enfield-today.co.uk/News.cfm?id=43000&headline=Alarm%20over%20job%20cuts%20at%20hospital
[13] http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2012/01/19/exclusive-merseyside-nhs-staff-cuts-to-see-4-001-jobs-go-by-2014-99623-30150190
[15] http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/district-and-community-nursing/serco-plans-to-cut-137-community-posts-in-suffolk/5052039.article
[22] http://www.truropeople.co.uk/groups/trurohealth/400-Jobs-Cut-Truro-Royal-Cornwall-Hospital/story-10908019-detail/story.html
[24] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2230584/NHS-Direct-close-24-30-centres-claims-union.html
[25] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/fears-for-patient-safety-as-60000-nhs-jobs-face-the-axe-8307270.html
[27] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/debtridden-nhs-trust-to-be-scrapped-8231436.html
[28] http://www.hsj.co.uk/acute-care/nhs-london-revives-queen-marys-sidcup-closure-plans-amid-patient-safety-concerns/5019638.article
[30] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8756245/Government-to-merge-Chase-Farm-Hospital-which-David-Cameron-vowed-to-save.html
[32] http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/trafford-health-trust-to-merge-with-neighbours-866605
[33] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207274/A-E-closures-Secret-report-reveals-lives-risk-sweeping-plans-close-25-casualty-units.html
[34]http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/burnley/9016530.Burnley_s_children_ward_to_stay_in_Blackburn/
[35] http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/last-chance-to-save-rochdale-infirmary-679318
Lord Owen’s Bill is proposed as below
National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill
A
BILL
TO
Re-establish the Secretary of State’s legal duty as to the National Health Service in England, QUANGOS and related bodies.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Secretary of State’s duties to promote and provide a comprehensive and integrated health service
For section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service) substitute:
“1 Secretary of State’s duty as to the health service
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to promote in England a comprehensive and integrated health service designed to secure improvement –
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness,
and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with this Act.
(2) The services so provided must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.
(3) The services provided pursuant to this Act and to the Health and Social Care Act 2012, howsoever or by whomsoever provided, secured or arranged, shall be deemed to be provided in furtherance of the duty to provide or secure effective provision of services under subsection (1).”
2 Abolition of the duties of autonomy
Section 1D and section 13F of the National Health Service Act 2006 (duties as to promoting autonomy) are repealed.
3 Concurrent duty of and commissioning by the NHS Commissioning Board
(1) Section 1H(2) of the National Health Service Act 2006 is repealed.
(2) In section 1H(3) of that Act, for “For the purpose of discharging that duty,” substitute “For the purpose of furthering the duty of the Secretary of State under section 1(1),”.
4 Secretary of State’s duty as to provision of certain services
(1) Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (1) insert—
“(Z1) The Secretary of State must provide or secure the effective provision
throughout England, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, the accommodation, services and facilities set out in subsection (1)(a)-(f).”
(3) In subsection (1), before “A”, insert “For that purpose,”.
5 Power of directions to QUANGOs and other bodies
(1) The Secretary of State may direct any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) to exercise any of his functions relating to the health service which are specified in the directions, and may also give directions to any such body about its exercise of any functions or about its provision of services under arrangements referred to in subsection 2(h).
(2) The bodies are—
(a) the National Health Service Commissioning Board
(b) a clinical commissioning group,
(c) a Special Health Authority,
(d) an NHS trust,
(e) an NHS foundation trust,
(f) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,
(g) the Health and Social Care Information Centre, and
(h) any other body or person providing services in pursuance of arrangements made—
(i) by the Secretary of State under section 12,
(ii) by the Board or a clinical commissioning group under section 3, 3A, 3B or 4 or Schedule 1,
(iii) by a local authority for the purpose of the exercise of its functions under or by virtue of section 2B or 6C(1) or Schedule 1, or
(iv) by the Board, a clinical commissioning group or a local authority by virtue of section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006.
(3) In exercising his power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability, so far as consistent with the interests of the health service and relevant to the exercise of the power in all the circumstances—
(a) of protecting and promoting the health of patients and the public;
(b) of any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) being free, in exercising its functions or providing services in accordance with its duties and powers, to do so in the manner that it considers best calculated to promote the comprehensive and integrated service referred to in section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006; and
(c) of ensuring cooperation between the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) in the exercise of their functions or provision of services.
(4) If, in having regard to the desirability of the matters referred to in subsection (3) the Secretary of State considers that there is a conflict between those matters and the discharge of his duties under section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, he must give priority to the duties under that section.
6 Monitor
(1) The Health and Social Care Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 61 insert—
“61A Monitor’s objective
(1) The objective of Monitor is to contribute to the achievement of a comprehensive and integrated health service in England through the exercise of its functions.
(2) In exercising its main duty and other functions Monitor must act in accordance with that objective and in a manner consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of his duties contained in sections 1 and 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”
(3) Section 62(9) is repealed.”
7 Interpretation
Expressions used in this Act which are also used in the National Health Service Act 2006 and in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 shall have the same meanings as the meanings given to those expressions under those Acts.
8 Short title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Act 2013.
(2) This Act shall come into force on the day on which it is passed.
(3) This Act extends to England.
As Jeremy Hunt gives his Conservatives Party Conference speech today, the NHA Party goes live
To follow on Twitter, go here.
The statement from the NHA Party reads as follows:
As Conservative health secretary Jeremy Hunt prepares to give his conference speech today (9thOctober), we should reflect that for generations the National Health Service (NHS) has cared for everyone according to need. When NHS patients and staff took centre stage at the London Olympics opening ceremony it highlighted its treasured place at the heart of our society. But commercialisation and increasing privatisation – policies being pushed through ever more rapidly by the Conservative-led coalition – are threatening the very survival of our much-loved health service. We’re launching a new political party, National Health Action (NHA), to stop the destruction of the NHS.
NHA’s website went live this week (w/c 8th October), and we want people from a wide range of backgrounds to join our party, to reflect the diversity of all who use the NHS and work in it.
The website is here.
Founded by a group of health professionals, our party strongly opposes the Health and Social Care Act. We believe the Act is wrecking the NHS in England by allowing it to be broken up and sold off. We intend to put up around 50 candidates in carefully chosen general election constituencies, and we will urge the Labour party to repeal the Act. We’ll also field candidates in local council elections.
Party co-leader and cancer specialist Dr Clive Peedell said: “For generations we’ve trusted the NHS to be a safety net for everyone in times of need. Putting the values of business and the markets ahead of those of patients and communities will ruin the NHS. This destruction is being fast-tracked by Tory and coalition policies. We hope our new party will halt this process.”
NHA co-leader Dr Richard Taylor is the former Independent MP for Wyre Forest. His victory in 2001 was based on a campaign to reopen accident and emergency services at Kidderminster General Hospital. He said: “We know the NHS and its values represent much of what’s best about the people of the UK. They realise instinctively that it’s only by supporting each other, particularly the most vulnerable, that we can hold onto our shared values of compassion and fairness.”
National Health Action: www.nationalhealthaction.org.uk
