- NHS Reforms defeated in House of Lords – What does that mean?
Ok so its been defeated, but what does that mean? The article below just states the fact but doesn’t say what happens next….
Commons will override the amendments again. The condems will probably again attempt to claim its a finance bill so they don’t have to put it thru the lords again.
All the lords can do is delay and even then by not much in the face of a determined Government. The only hope is the lib dem mps grow a pair.Posted 8 years ago
It will get pushed through, but be implemented behind schedule, meaning that the reforms will be given the usual year to 18 months to bed in before being ripped up and the whole shebang reorganised again.Posted 8 years ago
I was half-listening to R4 last night where is was said there is no mechanism to withdraw the bill as such – it could be bounced between the houses for ages being effectively and eventually watered down to nothing. I don’t know if this is actual-factual-fact (TM)Posted 8 years ago
Ah ok so when is the next election due?Posted 8 years ago
What TJ said. Expect to see some really dodgy carryings on from Call-Me-Dave.
He knows he can’t get this legislation through ‘democratically’ as the Lib Dems look like they’re feeling a bit queasy about it.
But… In an indication of their respect for representative democracy – The Tory’s are already well down the road of enacting this legislation, without waiting for it to actually be ‘legislation’.
I believe the Israeli army refer to this practice as establishing ‘facts on the ground’. Pretend to be going through some type of negotiation/process, while doing what the **** you like, ploughing on with your agenda regardless.
They need to get the legislation through at some point though. I expect to see them using some pretty dubious tactics. Guillotine motions and anti-terror legislation to prevent parliamentary debate and drive it through, as an absolute mockery of the word ‘democracy’
A bit like John Majors government did with privatising the railways. Unfortunately, this legislation will have a very similar effect on the health service. It is de facto privatisation. And once the genie is out of the bottle…..
Utterly depressing!Posted 8 years ago
Condems claim it is a finance bill and just force it through is the most likely outcome
It is unlikely the Lib Dems will grow a pair- really unlikely
H of Lords can only delay- bounce back and forth but iirc it is limited to 18 mths delay.Posted 8 years ago
FFS it is an awful day for democracy when we have two parties in co-alition govt and we still have to rely on unelected peers to show the will of the people
Who would have thunk it
Binners is right – they are already enacting it on the groundPosted 8 years ago
All the changes are going ahead full bore, I can’t see how they can stop the ball rolling now as so much damage has already been done it can’t be repaired.Posted 8 years ago
Its the speed of change and the work in progress that I guess I was thinking about.
I work for a part of the NHS that will no longer (if the reforms go ahead) exist in a years time. I wouldn’t say its irreversable yet, but millions will have already been spent in the changes we are already implementing/have implemented.
I personally beleive the NHS could do with a shake up, in some areas it is woeful and could do with a good kick up the backside, which some of this change may bring, but I don’t think the overall system is as flawed as David is making out.Posted 8 years ago
Most importantly, its nowhere near as flawed as the system he’s keen to emulate… America’s
The care is great. If you can afford it. Which most people can’t. In which case, you can die in the gutter for all we carePosted 8 years ago
I amjust so glad the con dems cannot eff up the nhs herePosted 8 years ago
Your amusingly named condems are just the latest in a line of politicians who truly condemn the NHS. The whole system is frankly beyond reform and the current absurd process is just another woeful example.
So a bill is introduced too quickly and without sufficient reasoning. It then progresses through the legislation process before finally running into opposition. Then a seemingly endless catalogue of amendments including more than 100 recent changes in the past few days…..cue, “camels…horses…committees.”
What organisation would then survive the introduction of botched compromises that will need to be re-done as soon as they are implemented (ok, the EU but that’s another story)? As The Guardian writer concluded yesterday, “The real tragedy, however, is that this floundering plan is not just causing chaos, but wrecking the chances of real reform.”
Plus ca change, rien na change!Posted 8 years ago
I didn’t realise that, until they were forced to drop it to 5% by pressure from the Lords, that the govt proposals included the fact that NHS hospitals could offer up to 49% of their surgery to private companies. 49%!
Obviously this would still allow them to say that the majority of surgery time would be available to NHS patients 🙄
And I still cannot get my head around the fact that seemingly no-one in the various professions involved in the delivery of the NHS wants the bill, they all think it will be a disaster.
And why the obsession that Doctors are the best people to run the NHS? Of course they’re not, they’re the best people to treat the patients. Like it or not, a massive organisation like the NHS needs a massive management structure to make sure the bills get paid, the bins get emptied, the bogs get cleaned, the cotton wool balls get bought etc etc etc etc. That in turn needs skilled managers at varying levels. Abolishing the SHA’s may sound great, but the functions they provide will just be provided by someone else because they are still needed, at the same cost.Posted 8 years ago
interesting listening to Alan Millburn on this, it seems that Labours politicking has got in the way of a very good bill that would in its original format have brought a great change to the NHS, shame that politics gets in the way of reforming the NHS.Posted 8 years ago
Imagine a world in which 49% of schools were private, run by corporations, and who by law have to prioritise profit before education. And you’re close to what Lansley dreams of.Posted 8 years ago
The hand grenade contained within the bill is the separation of doctors ‘commissioning’ services and NHS hospitals ‘supplying’ them
Once that essential division is in place, then the NHS is open to the legal enforcement of EU competition law, which states that any services commissioned have to be open to bidding from ‘any qualified supplier’
That means that private healthcare companies can legally demand access to the ‘market’ in healthcare.
Will they be interested in all services the NHS provides. Of course not. They’ll cherrypick the profitable bits. Then leave a rump public service dealing with long-term care etc that they can’t be arsed with, while they cream profits off
This is Call me Daves ultimate aim. Remember this:
Essentially, he’s not lying. The same money will go into the NHS. Its just that less will be spent on providing front-line care. An awful lot of it will be going into the pockets of his friends in the private health businesss. Its bloody scandalous!! And the general public need to wake up pretty damn quick, before they’ve dismantled the whole structure of universal healthcarePosted 8 years ago
Really sancho – hardly a single person who actually works in the NHS has anythign good to say about this bill at all.
It will increase bureaucracy, decrease accountability, make co operation and planning harder, increase costs and is designed to prepare the service for privatisation.
teamhurtmore – Member
. The whole system is frankly beyond reform
rubbish – it is one of the most cost effective systems in the world . It does not need reform – it needs the stupidity of the last management structure fiddling to be removed and then to be left to get on with it – as has happened in Scotland.
This bill was only ever intended for one purpose – to prepare the NHS for wholesale privatisation.Posted 8 years ago
It seems that Labours politicking has got in the way of a very good bill that would in its original format have brought a great change to the NHS, shame that politics gets in the way of reforming the NHS.
You are andrew lansley ansd I claim my £5
No one apart form fanatical right wing pro competition anti NHS folk think this is anything other than a bag of shite- yes it is great change in the sense it changes a great deal not in the sense the changes would be greatPosted 8 years ago
rubbish – it is one of the most cost effective systems in the world
People forget what an achievement this is given the NHS directly employs more than any other organisation in the world, other than the Indian railways, and the Chinese Army! This efficiency is achieved without competition being the driving force, it is achieved through dedication and a commitment to care.Posted 8 years ago
Sancho – it is very interesting to read/listen to Millburn not least because he almost sounds as if he has joined the conservatives (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100136011/alan-milburn-applies-for-the-job/) but also because he now sounds closer to the Adam Smith Institute than the Labour Party!!
According to Millburn:
The Health and Social Care Bill is a patchwork quilt of complexity, compromise and confusion. It is incapable of giving the NHS the clarity and direction it needs. It is a roadblock to meaningful reform.
Health and social care should be better integrated, rather than being forced into artificial silos that suit planners instead of patients.
Control should be decentralised.
Payment should be by results.
The private sector should play a greater role.
And patients should become active participants in their healthcare, rather than mere passive recipients.
And finally as if quoting the ASI DIRECTLY, he concludes:
Patients should get their own personal budgets, “so that they can buy the services that are right for them”.
Politicians rarely fail to disappoint but at least Politics never fails to surprise and amuse!!Posted 8 years ago
TJ – we have been round that roundabout too many times. No need to repeat, just agree to disagree.Posted 8 years ago
Leave the NHS alone i say. It works to some degree. What does need reforming is the amount of useless paperwork, that your expected to fill out to make the desk jockeys happy.
We are very lucky to have free healthcare in this country, some people don’t realise how much some procedures that they are getting for free under the NHS costs if you were to pay for them.
Hernia surgery for example, that will be £7,000 a route Cystoscopy will set you back £1000. Dressing for said Hernia a box of 10 that will cost you £20. TTO’s from Hospital are free so you get away with Prescription charges.
What does need reforming, is better staffing levels, stop spunking money on Agency staff. Get RGN’s, Doctors and Health Care Assistants into the wards. RGN’s etc on long term sick mostly due to stress of running wards on bare bones staff. That needs addressing.
Also, more incentive for student nurses to do the training and get the understaffed wards filled. How is a Trainee Nurse expected to train on £200 a month. Which involves 40 hours a week in Uni and 40 hour weeks on a Hospital ward. They are supposed to be Supernumery, but are used to make up the numbers.
Make it more picky and get it back to the way it used to be 100 places per year and get them on a Band 3 Salary and bring back the Nursing Schools.Posted 8 years ago
its funny how politicians talk about personal empowermen
Seriously WTF do i know about medical treatment compared to a medical professional?
I would no more ask me about this than i would ask a doctor about the education system or a nurse for careers advice or a banker to fix my car.
It is just a way of letting vocal opinionated middle class busy bodies have a say in everything even when they know F all
Bit like STW but with actual powers 😯
Why can’t I have a say in how airplane wings are dsigned or car braking systems? after all I knw f all about their operation.
Political posturing and tbh i dont actually understand what the point is in empowerting people when they dont have the knowledge base to use the”power”
His change makes it look lie Blair stayed on the radical left wing of labourPosted 8 years ago
wont somebody think of the children
no really ive worked with inner city kids in america and the UK
probably the biggest difference between the 2 sets of children is their access to basic healthcare and the american kids are a lot worse of because off it
and private healthcare is the main factor imho
and before someone accuses me for dragging such an emotive issue into the debate, im well aware that the people who will suffer the most from these ‘reforms’ will be oapsPosted 8 years ago
Preparing the NHS for privatisation.
LOL, very funny, the problem is the last Government already opened up the NHS to private companies, so this bill is simply an extension of that.
Privatising the NHS is very different from letting private companies get involved in running parts of the service, or Trusts trating private patients as they do now.
Hospitals allowing 49% of time to be given to private patients, The Royal Marsden already allocates 30% of its time to private patients, and that is regarded as one of the best hospitals in the country and it hasnt affected waiting times etc. so still dont see the problem.Posted 8 years ago
This whole cock-up reminds me of the Thatcherite dream of cutting down the civil service. Which actually ended up increasing its size.
Genius.Posted 8 years ago
The Royal Marsden already allocates 30% of its time to private patients, and that is regarded as one of the best hospitals in the country and it hasnt affected waiting times etc. so still dont see the problem.
This is the approach of a politician: choose a specific example, describe it in isolation and then turn it into a general rule.Posted 8 years ago
the royal marsden is infact desperate to opt out of the NHS
theyve asked several times to go 100% private because of the ridiculous amounts of cash they rake in from their celeb patients, they are based in Chelsea and Kensington after all the richest borough in the country and one with the longest life expectancy of any city borough too
the NHS has always said no to their requests but im sure that the tories next step will be to let them leave the NHS and save their expertise for the ‘haves’Posted 8 years ago
see borris already axing the congestion charge for the same area
Oh, and the purpose of the NHS is conveniently captured in its name: National Health Service.
All the words we need to know….Posted 8 years ago
hardly a single person who actually works in the NHS has anythign good to say about this bill at all.
People with vested interests in maintaining the status quo in resistent to change shocker 🙄
I think its interesting that the people are now cheering on the House of Lords blocking the will of the democratically elected government, are the same people who were not so long ago telling us how unrepresentative, undemocratic and anachronistic the continued existence of the House of Lords was…Posted 8 years ago
Teamhurtmore / Sancho – its interesting that almost none of the professionals agree with you – ie those who actually know what is going on in the service.
Teh only people who say this bill is good are those ideologically opposed to state healthcare, those who are set to make profits out of it and thse who do not understand the issues but arte taken in by the tory propaganda.
How about this – from the body that sets the standards for GPs -note it has no trade union functions
The Royal College of General Practitioners – the UK’s largest medical Royal College – has today written to the Prime Minister calling for the complete withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill.
Despite the number and extent of the amendments, the College remains concerned that the Bill will cause irreparable damage to patient care and jeopardise the NHS.
“We support a greater role for GPs in the planning, design and delivery of services within their local communities, but as the organisation representing the views of over 44,000 GPs, we cannot support a Bill that will damage the care and services that GPs deliver to patients and ultimately bring about the demise of a unified, national health service.
The Royal Marsden is primarily a cancer hospital so nothing to do with local celebs, but again dont let reality get in the way of your views.Posted 8 years ago
and again, picking one example, is what you would expect to substantiate an argument, I dont hold it up as a answer to the NHS more a indicator that allowing NHS hospitals to treat private patients is not the death of the NHS and has not affected waiting times again, arguments put against the treatment of private patients, (which is already happening)Posted 8 years ago
and where do you think celebs go to get their cancer treated?
i am aware as ive worked there and at the adjoing institute of cancer researchPosted 8 years ago
Or how about this?
Vested interests I hear you cry – well in 30 years of working in the NHS I have never seen such concerted concern from such a range of bodies. never.
Its not about vested interests – its about the interests of patients.
We are the representative and professional bodies representing the majority of doctors, nurses, midwives and physiotherapy staff in the NHS. For months our members have been telling us about the chaotic way the reforms are being implemented on the ground, before the legislation has even been passed (Report, 7 February). It has been an unnecessary distraction when the NHS should be focusing on a far more important issue: finding the £20bn in efficiency savings it needs to make at a time when demand is increasing. We are concerned that the bill will mean we end up with a service where it is harder for patients to receive joined-up care. Eleventh-hour tinkering in the form of amendments is not enough; we call on the government to do the sensible thing – withdraw the bill and work with clinicians to bring stability back to the NHS.
The ill-advised bill enters its Lords report stage today. We call upon peers to vote against it.Posted 8 years ago
Dr Peter Carter Chief executive and general secretary, Royal College of Nursing, Dr Hamish Meldrum Chairman, BMA Council, Professor Cathy Warwick General secretary, Royal College of Midwives, Dr Helena Johnson Chair, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
the doctors I know are all for it.Posted 8 years ago
And kimbers do you honestly think that the Royal Marsden is some kind of celebrity cancer hospital. lol
Yeah right – All the royal colleges and the BMA are agaisnt it and the vast majority of Doctors in every poll carries out.Posted 8 years ago
People with vested interests in maintaining the status quo in resistent to change shocker
Jesus Christ Z-11! Anyone who doesn’t want to see the NHS get ****ed over are now Bob Crow are they. They’re not fighting for their own greed. They’re trying to save a public service
While, of course, bank chiefs trousering bonuses are some kind of knights of capitalist purity! FFS! Get a grip!
GP’s, midwives, consultants and surgeons are hardly renowned as arsey socialists. Communists even.
What’s it like living in your world?Posted 8 years ago
Sancho – you’re just extrapolating the example of one hospital and indicating that the rule applies across all hospitals and healthcare services delivered by the NHS.
A scientist might tell you that it wasn’t sufficiently statistically relevant.
I’m pleased that the Royal Marsden (Bullheart’s choice of venue, I believe)is able to treat 100% NHS demand with 70% capacity, but I spsuect that rule is unlikely to be repeated across the rest of the Service. I’m also pleased, therefore, that it’s a hospital available to any NHS user, from anywhere in the country – if it’s postcode limited, your argument is further diminished….Posted 8 years ago
The topic ‘NHS Reforms defeated in House of Lords – What does that mean?’ is closed to new replies.