Questions for Lansley on abortion inspections

Did the Health Secretary put his political interests before patient care?

With the NHS bill finally making it onto the statute book and the media focused on the Budget, the past two weeks have been unusually peaceful for Andrew Lansley. But that's all changed this morning. The Health Secretary stands accused of diverting resources away from patient care by ordering the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to carry out unannounced inspections of more than 300 abortion clinics. The CQC has revealed that the £1m four-day inspection of clinics meant 580 inspections on other parts of the health service had to be "forgone".

In a sternly-worded letter to the Department of Health, Dame Jo Williams, chair of the health regulator, said: "Such a request at short notice entails operation’s management time in planning the visits, cancelling pre-planned inspections as well as the compliance inspector’s time in carrying out the visits and drafting the reports.

"Add to this the anticipated enforcement activity that will inevitably arise and it is clear that this has a considerable impact on our capacity to deliver our annual targets."

The suspicion among some is that the inspections were ordered by Lansley in a bid to placate the Conservatives' pro-life wing and to generate positive headlines.

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, commented on the Today programme this morning:

It's hard not to draw the conclusion that the health secretary was desperately trying to get on the front foot. Nothing else explains why he gve the findings to a newspaper midway through this programme of visits that he ordered, and you may remember that this was the day when the home secretary had been brought to the Commons to make a statement on alcohol.

More strikingly, Stephen Dorrell, the Conservative chairman of the health select committee and the man often touted as a possible replacement for Lansley, warned that the "independence" of the CQC was in doubt:

I think we need to be clear whether the priorities of the regulator are genuinely determined independently by the CQC itself, or whether the priorities are determined by the secretary of state. Is it independent or is it not? I would argue it's very strongly in the public interest, as well actually as it being in the secretary of state's interest for it to be clearly established that the CQC is an independent regulator.

Shortly afterwards, Dorrell was attacked by Nadine Dorries, the leading Conservative pro-lifer, who accused him of putting "his own personal ambition above proffessional (sic) morality".

But it is Lansley who stands accused of putting his own political interests above patient care, a grave charge that he must now fully answer.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

It's Gary Lineker 1, the Sun 0

The football hero has found himself at the heart of a Twitter storm over the refugee children debate.

The Mole wonders what sort of topsy-turvy universe we now live in where Gary Lineker is suddenly being called a “political activist” by a Conservative MP? Our favourite big-eared football pundit has found himself in a war of words with the Sun newspaper after wading into the controversy over the age of the refugee children granted entry into Britain from Calais.

Pictures published earlier this week in the right-wing press prompted speculation over the migrants' “true age”, and a Tory MP even went as far as suggesting that these children should have their age verified by dental X-rays. All of which leaves your poor Mole with a deeply furrowed brow. But luckily the British Dental Association was on hand to condemn the idea as unethical, inaccurate and inappropriate. Phew. Thank God for dentists.

Back to old Big Ears, sorry, Saint Gary, who on Wednesday tweeted his outrage over the Murdoch-owned newspaper’s scaremongering coverage of the story. He smacked down the ex-English Defence League leader, Tommy Robinson, in a single tweet, calling him a “racist idiot”, and went on to defend his right to express his opinions freely on his feed.

The Sun hit back in traditional form, calling for Lineker to be ousted from his job as host of the BBC’s Match of the Day. The headline they chose? “Out on his ears”, of course, referring to the sporting hero’s most notable assets. In the article, the tabloid lays into Lineker, branding him a “leftie luvvie” and “jug-eared”. The article attacked him for describing those querying the age of the young migrants as “hideously racist” and suggested he had breached BBC guidelines on impartiality.

All of which has prompted calls for a boycott of the Sun and an outpouring of support for Lineker on Twitter. His fellow football hero Stan Collymore waded in, tweeting that he was on “Team Lineker”. Leading the charge against the Murdoch-owned title was the close ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and former Channel 4 News economics editor, Paul Mason, who tweeted:

Lineker, who is not accustomed to finding himself at the centre of such highly politicised arguments on social media, responded with typical good humour, saying he had received a bit of a “spanking”.

All of which leaves the Mole with renewed respect for Lineker and an uncharacteristic desire to watch this weekend’s Match of the Day to see if any trace of his new activist persona might surface.


I'm a mole, innit.