Last August, the then Labour government commissioned a KPMG report into the future of NHS Direct (along with some other related NHS services). The report has been submitted to the current government, though not published.
So if Labour MPs and members were saying how the government must publish the KPMG report right away to see if it justifies the plans to migrate NHS Direct over to the planned 111 service, fair enough.
But for many in Labour to be demanding that the NHS Direct plans be abandoned without knowing the outcome of the KPMG report is tantamount to saying, “Who cares what that report the Labour government commissioned says? I’ve got my entrenched view and there’s no point looking at any evidence because my mind is firmly made up.” In which case, why bother with commissioning that KPMG report in the first place?
Bit of a waste of money really if you’ve decided you don’t care what it says. And the government could do itself some favours by publishing the report for us all to see.
(By an odd coincidence, by the way, being called “Tom” seems to be the main criteria for saner views on this issue from Labour as it’s Tom Harris MP who blogged this thoughtful piece and Tom Watson MP who has been digging trying to get to see the KPMG report.)
14 Comments
Labour is learning the lesson from the US Republican party. Don’t worry about logic, consistency, honesty or anything else. Just oppose, criticise, condemn. At the moment the Republicans look set to take the House and possibly the Senate. This is an effective approach and might just see a Labour PM back in number 10 within five years.
I could ask the same of the Liberal Democrats and their Steele Commission, which they seem to ignore alongwith the Calman Commission, and then of course, there was the Gould Commission that the LDs are also trying to ignore by having the AV referendum in May….
Whereas aborting a pilot into an alternative halfway through is practical commonsense, and not the same at all.
Why did the Dep of Health refuse to release the report under the FOI Act?
Gregor – the Steel Commission was not ignored. It was published and then was the Liberal Democrat submission to the Calman Commission which was then accepted as a compromise between Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties in Scotland. The SNP of course refused to take part in the Calman Commission.
Hi Mark,
I think I should say that I’m after the report because I believe there is a case for merging the NHS Direct web site and the NHS Choices web site. Everyone knows about the former site; a staggering – millions – is spent on the latter. I want to look at a more detailed assessment of the merits of both sites before speaking out in Parliament.
I was asking the questions before I knew of the Coalition’s plans to abolish the service. I think NHS Direct is a wonderful service but would understand if there are efficiencies that can be made. That’s different to axing the whole thing. Is there a sensible debate to be had about what efficiency savings can be made without total wipe-out?
Tom: your final question is a fair one, though I’d add to that the difference between axing, merging and renaming services can be a pretty fine one: when does merging or changing a service become axing it? What seems to be clear so far is that there will be a non-emergency phone number people can call for health advice. How should that best be done would be a better starting point for a public debate – though the government hasn’t exactly done its best to make this the starting point either.
How about the contributors to this site, just once, find out Labour’s objections to issues before making posts about them? Wouldn’t that be novel?
Mike: Your scepticism (if it’s directed at my post rather than at commenters) is rather misdirected as I did look at what several Labour MPs and activists were saying on this issue, just as I usually do when researching a piece. And a good thing too in this case, else I’d have missed Tom Watson’s FoI request.
Paul: the reasons for refusing the FoI request are in the link from the post – basically because it’s about policy formulation.
Mike, you and others, here and on Twitter, never tire of telling us your objections; as far as I can tell they mostly amount to ‘the government proposed it’, ‘so what if we did too’ and ‘betrayal!’.
Of course the SNP refused to take part in Calman; a Government consultation that looked at ALL options was already underway, taking part in a restricted consultation on top of that is duplication.
So is the LD position Steele or Calman? It can’t be both.
Also, Gould?
> Paul: the reasons for refusing the FoI request are in the link from the post – basically because it’s about policy formulation.
And is this a good reason at all? To quote a character from Star Trek TNG, “scrutiny does not frighten us”.
If people cannot discuss policy because they are so afraid of being damaged by their own words, then perhaps such people should be removed from the process.
Should not the new politics include that kind of transparency?
Voter: I agree; I don’t think it’s a good reason to withhold publishing it.
Certainly no staff at NHS Direct oppose the development off 111, it the need for NHS Direct to be the core of the new number, ensuring patients get a good service and we dont end up with 1,000 nurses on the Dole
its outrageous that Ministers and Departnement of Health has not said anything to staff
all they know todate is what is in newspapers
its not acceptable