NHS Mandate: Health Inequalities Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Tomlinson
Main Page: Lord Tomlinson (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Tomlinson's debates with the Department for International Development
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberWill the Minister accept that the proposals to close the excellent and much-admired accident and emergency hospital in Lewisham, and to downgrade its maternity services, have been made not because there is anything wrong with the hospital but because a government-appointed administrator has said that that should be done in order to help the neighbouring National Health Service trust, which has run up £130 million-worth of debt? Will she accept that closing and downgrading good facilities is an act of almost criminal stupidity, which leads to nothing but increased health inequalities when the Government’s objective is to reduce them?
The noble Lord might have heard his noble friend Lord Darzi comment on the difficulty of reorganising services so that they are as efficient and effective as possible. I would ask him to have a look at that.
My answer is that, as I have said, the Act puts reducing health inequalities at the centre; that is a responsibility at every level, and those things will be monitored in certain ways. As the noble Lord, who is winking at his colleague and perhaps not looking at me right now, might remember, the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament and will be answerable for all these areas. If the noble Lord is right, and actions that are taken do not reduce inequalities, there will be an opportunity to hold the Government to account.