Speech to the Kings Fund – John Healey MP, Shadow Health Secretary

20 January 2011

The truth behind the Tory plans
Thank you for inviting me, 24 hours after the Health Bill was published, to examine the Government’s plans with you.

It is a work in progress for me, and perhaps for you.

I was advised by someone who’s views I value, that if I was speaking at the King’s Fund, to not be too political. To talk policy.

But I am a politician, not a health policy specialist. I don’t, and probably won’t ever, know as much about health policy as you do.

Professor Alan Maynard points out the ludicrous state of NHS workforce planning.

The Department of Health usually has to hire some management consultancy to be told that the NHS is labour-intensive and the major cost pressure is the payment of wages and salaries.

A reader emails to draw my attention to the following passage in the Bill (under para 275 Transfer schemes: supplemental on page 279)

“5. A staff transfer scheme may make provision which is the same or similar to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246).

“6. A property transfer scheme or a staff transfer scheme may provide:
(a) for the scheme to be modified by agreement after it comes into effect, and
(b) for any such modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme comes into effect”.

Amid all this fuss, it's easy to overlook HSJ's reporting that Nigel Edwards will step down as acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation later this year.

Nigel has been with the Confed for a dozen years, and stepped up to become acting chief executive in trying circumstances following the well-publicised problems with NHS Employers that led to the exit of former Confed CE Steve Barnett.

Cabinet Office guidance on setting up a new public body, dated January 2007, states:

"2.1 Statutory Authority
"2.1.1 Where the Public Body is to be funded by the sponsoring department it is likely that statutory authority will be required.

Five things you should really know about the proposed Health and Social Care Bill

1. Post-implementation evaluation – the lack thereof
2. The Liberator is not for liberating
3. The estimated £1.4 billion cost of reorganisation is very modest
4. Patient care? Naaah.
5. Consortia are not statutory bodies

1. Post-implementation evaluation – the lack thereof

Below is a rough transcript of the Q&A session from the press conference launching the Health and Social Care Bill today. (If anyone would like to email in your observations on the Bill, please send to editorial AT healthpolicyinsight.com)

Q&A
Q: What do you say to those who say this is too much too fast; are nervous of effects of competition and loss of management talent?

Right off to the pub - no! the DH, for 30-minute read of Bill (ha ha ha) and then press conference.

See you later.

The day is getting livelier already. There is a heavy police presence on Whitehall, including riot police. I'm just not that scary.

And to add to the gaiety, the liberal think-tank Civitas has just published a report by Sir David Varney on Risk, 'Equity And Excellence'.

I suppose if you were about to abolish me, I might unleash a sense of mischief in my timing. The Audit Commission faces abolition. And has on the morning of the Health and Social Care Bill's introduction to Parliament, released its report that Barking, Havering and Redbridge has failed to meet its statutory duty.

The AC press release is copied below.

Audit Commission PR 2472 19/01/2011 [For Immediate Release]

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust has failed to meet its statutory financial duty