BMA: Lansley’s Health Bill may need to be dropped
As the government’s listening exercise winds down, a consensus on competition in the NHS is no close
By Samira Shackle Published 26 May 2011 10:08
The government's health plans for the NHS in England require such substantial changes that the entire bill may have to be dropped, according to the British Medical Association.
The doctors' union called for a series of changes in its submission to the government's six-week listening exercise, which was called in response to mounting criticism of the Health and Social Care Bill. In particular, doctors demand that the regulator's new duty to promote competition be dropped. They also want to see timetables relaxed and the net of responsibilities that the bill places on GP consortiums spread to involve other clinical staff.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, is due to deliver a speech on health reform that will be closely watched, given his tough rhetoric on NHS reform in recent weeks.
Although he will call for substantial changes, he is expected to echo David Cameron's speech last week on the need for reform. The Liberal Democrats share their main concern about the bill with the BMA: that competition clause. The BMA wants a greater emphasis on collaboration; the Liberal Democrats endorsed this at their spring conference. To this end, Clegg will say:
People want choice – over their GP, where to give birth, which hospital to use. But providing that choice isn't the same as allowing private companies to cherry-pick NHS services.
As the listening exercise – essentially a second consultation period – draws to a close, it seems a consensus is no closer.
The government has repeatedly promised substantial change and rethinking of the bill (while reiterating the need for reform), but the question is how far it is willing to go with watering down the competition clause. Given that a free-market philosophy permeates Andrew Lansley's entire bill, and it has the support of many Conservatives, this will prove problematic.
Among the groups that have backed the government's plans for greater competition are Reform, a pro-market think tank, and the NHS Confederation, which represents managers. Doctors on one side and managers on the other: whose advice would you rather take?
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















6 comments
Dolliedox:
Fair and sincere comment - I take many of your points - BUT - never forget that if it wasn't for 'politics' - in the sense you mean - there would never have been an NHS in the first place.
Your doctors vs managers comment is crass. Let's not forget that the NHS already is privatised in large part - GPs are private business people who make money out of the NHS. They make the bull of the BMA's membership. Is it possible that their opposition to greater entry of new providers is driven by a desire to maintain market share and the status quo rather than any commitment to any kind of public service ideals?
"Doctors or Managers: Who's side would you take?"
Managers of course - Doctors only know what's wrong with us and can prescribe a cure - regardless of financial accountability - whereas Managers and Mr Lansley know what is good for us - i.e. not to aspire to health care we plainly cannot afford.
Furthermore Managers know what is in the pot (after their salaries have been taken out - without anaesthetic). As Mr Major used to tell us -"If it isn't hurting - it isn't working." Happy days.
Please - The NHS is a busted flush. We must move to a Social Insurance funding model and far, far wider range of providers.
It is what they have in Germany, France, the rest of the EU and almost all the rest of the world - and it works better.
Drop the socialist dogma, do what Prescott said - what works
Dan: Very brave comment - hope them there greedy doctors don't discover who you really are Dan 'cos a tonsilectomy might be a dodgy business in your case. I'd stick to having colds if I were you - there is no cure for them - therefore no need to annoy and/or enrich the doctors. A cold is recommended by Cameron as part of The Big Society (voluntary ailments dept.) Keep taking the piss though . . . I mean tablets - don't I?
The point is there should be NO SIDE - the only way for health services to reform is by working in partnership to improve them - oh yeah and take politics out of the equation! The health service should be run by people who actually work in it day in and day out, who have a grasp of what the actual issues are and the skills to work in PARTNERSHIP with colleagues to improve them!
It's time MP's remembered they are public SERVANTS not Dictators!