All 3 Debates between Nick Raynsford and Lord Lansley

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Lansley
Wednesday 16th March 2011

(13 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In a moment.

Only yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee said that over the past 10 years the productivity of NHS hospitals had been in almost continuous decline, and that taxpayers were getting less for every pound invested in the NHS: Labour, leaving us to sort out the mess. The truth of the matter is that the NHS needs to change to meet the rising demand for and cost of health care.

The changes that the NHS needs are simple: more investment, less waste, power to front-line doctors, nurses and health professionals, and to put patients first.

Nick Raynsford Portrait Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) first.

NHS White Paper

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Lansley
Monday 12th July 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, my hon. Friend understands that GPs are often providers beyond their primary medical services responsibilities. One of the difficulties with fundholding was that there was an opportunity for that conflict of interest to arise and not be properly resolved, so we have made it clear that, in the commissioning framework that we will publish, we will set out consultation proposals on how we ensure that that conflict of interest is not allowed to arise. Where GPs wish to be providers, we do not constrain them, but how that contract is arrived at is transparent and open.

Nick Raynsford Portrait Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

How can the Secretary of State, with a straight face, say that he opposes the culture of top-down bureaucracy and decisions being taken by politicians, when he himself, in the past six weeks, has stopped the implementation of a clinically led and agreed programme for improving health care provision in south-east London, which was going ahead until he stopped it? Does he now accept that his words carry very little force for those of us who know what his actions indicate?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No is the answer. I set out on 21 May criteria on listening to patients and understanding what patient choice will be in future; on engaging the public, including local authorities, which are now following through on that accountability; on following the clinical evidence of what can best deliver outcomes; and on ensuring that GPs, as we have made clear, must be supportive and engaged. If any proposal in London is made at local level, such as the one the right hon. Gentleman refers to in Oxleas, that satisfies those criteria, which are bottom-up and locally led, there is no difficulty in its proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Raynsford and Lord Lansley
Tuesday 29th June 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Raynsford Portrait Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

The Secretary of State has halted the reconfiguration of services in south-east London, which was clinically led, the subject of detailed public consultation and approved by the reconfiguration panel. The outcome is to leave my PCT and hospital trust acutely troubled about their ability to deliver the improved health services that were promised under “A picture of health” and to meet their financial targets. What does that say about the Government’s commitment to evidence-based policy making?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What we have done in London is to give those who would be most affected by decisions to reconfigure services the opportunity, where decisions have not already been made, to have a local say. That includes patients, the public and GP commissioners. The delay, in so far as there is any delay, need not be great if those proposals are fully subscribed to by local people and by their GPs as commissioners.