This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/01/gps-drop-health-bill

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
GPs urge government to axe health bill GPs urge government to axe health bill
(40 minutes later)
A group of 365 GPs, specialists and health academics have urged the government to ditch the health and social care bill, which they say will "derail and fragment" the NHS. A group of 365 GPs, specialists and health academics has urged the government to ditch the health and social care bill, which they say will "derail and fragment" the NHS.
The warning is outlined in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph on the same day that the government prepares to table a series of amendments designed to prevent a cross-party revolt among peers. The warning is outlined in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph on the same day the government prepares to table a series of amendments designed to prevent a cross-party revolt among peers.
The letter urges the government to drop the bill altogether and focus instead on the "real issues", namely improving safety, efficiency and the quality of patient care.The letter urges the government to drop the bill altogether and focus instead on the "real issues", namely improving safety, efficiency and the quality of patient care.
It says the clinical commissioning group leaders who have backed the bill "do not represent the majority of GPs who believe the bill will seriously damage patient care".It says the clinical commissioning group leaders who have backed the bill "do not represent the majority of GPs who believe the bill will seriously damage patient care".
It goes on: "The NHS is not in peril if these reforms don't go ahead. On the contrary, it is the bill which threatens to derail and fragment the NHS into a collection of competing private providers. The bill will result in hundreds of different organisations pulling against each other, leading to fragmentation, chaos and damage to the quality and availability of patient care." It adds: "The NHS is not in peril if these reforms don't go ahead. On the contrary, it is the bill which threatens to derail and fragment the NHS into a collection of competing private providers. The bill will result in hundreds of different organisations pulling against each other, leading to fragmentation, chaos and damage to the quality and availability of patient care."
Labour seized on the letter as yet more proof that the reforms, which have been promoted as pro-GP, were "completely unacceptable" to the profession as a whole. Labour seized on the letter as further proof that the reforms, which have been promoted as pro-GP, were "completely unacceptable" to the profession as a whole.
Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said: "Health professionals can see it for what it is: a privatisation plan for the NHS. The call on the government to drop its discredited health bill is gaining momentum and support from the professions and the public. By dropping the bill, the government would bring much-needed stability, save over £1bn next year and allow the NHS to focus on the financial challenge."Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said: "Health professionals can see it for what it is: a privatisation plan for the NHS. The call on the government to drop its discredited health bill is gaining momentum and support from the professions and the public. By dropping the bill, the government would bring much-needed stability, save over £1bn next year and allow the NHS to focus on the financial challenge."
The Lib Dem peer Baroness Williams, one of the leading opponents of the bill, said it was too early to say whether the legislation would be workable or not, because no one had yet seen the nearly 200 amendments that the government is expected to put forward. The Lib Dem peer Baroness Williams, one of the leading opponents of the bill, said it was too early to say whether the legislation would be workable or not, because no one had yet seen the nearly 200 amendments the government is expected to put forward.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the marketisation of the NHS would be a "disaster", but pointed to "significant changes" already secured in the bill which she indicated made this less likely. She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the marketisation of the NHS would be a "disaster", but pointed to "significant changes" already secured in the bill that she indicated made this less likely.
"I think there have been some really significant changes, and one of the main ones is to limit competition to being on quality rather than on price, which is where we began," she said. "I think the great spectre of the marketisation of the NHS, which I think would be a disaster, has probably begun to shrink.""I think there have been some really significant changes, and one of the main ones is to limit competition to being on quality rather than on price, which is where we began," she said. "I think the great spectre of the marketisation of the NHS, which I think would be a disaster, has probably begun to shrink."
A flagship amendment being put forward by the government is the reinstatement of a clause obligating the health secretary to retain ultimate control over the NHS. Peers including Williams and the former Tory lord chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern had complained that the original bill left serious legal doubt as to whether the secretary of state would any longer be responsible for providing a "comprehensive health service for the people of England free at the point of need". A flagship amendment being put forward by the government is the reinstatement of a clause obliging the health secretary to retain ultimate control over the NHS. Peers including Williams and the former Tory lord chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern had complained the original bill left serious legal doubts over whether the secretary of state would still be responsible for providing a "comprehensive health service for the people of England free at the point of need".
They feared that the absence of a chain of accountability would allow the service to become fragmented as different groups of doctors adopted different approaches and the role of the private sector expanded. They feared the absence of a chain of accountability would allow the service to become fragmented as different groups of doctors adopted different approaches and the role of the private sector expanded.
Williams welcomed the fact that the accountability and "clear responsibility" of the secretary of state would be spelt out. She told Today: "I think it's absolutely crucial to say on the face of the bill that the secretary of state continues to be responsible for a comprehensive and universal health service because once you take away the secretary of state and his accountability … you've lost the whole structure of the health service.Williams welcomed the fact that the accountability and "clear responsibility" of the secretary of state would be spelt out. She told Today: "I think it's absolutely crucial to say on the face of the bill that the secretary of state continues to be responsible for a comprehensive and universal health service because once you take away the secretary of state and his accountability … you've lost the whole structure of the health service.
"I think we've got that back. But I hope we've got it back because it also includes responsibility for the clinical commissioning groups through the secretary of state to the interests and goals of the health service.""I think we've got that back. But I hope we've got it back because it also includes responsibility for the clinical commissioning groups through the secretary of state to the interests and goals of the health service."