Politicians should “cut all the flim-flam” and drop rhetoric which is “damaging public confidence” in the NHS, Victoria Atkins has warned.
In a Commons debate about Lord Darzi’s NHS investigation, the Conservative shadow health secretary urged Wes Streeting to “transition quickly from opposing to governing”.
Mr Streeting, the Health Secretary, had earlier warned the NHS is on course for “ruin”.
Lord Darzi published his NHS review in September.
The former Labour health minister made 28 findings, including that “it has taken more than a decade for the NHS to fall into disrepair” and that management structures are “still reeling from a turbulent decade”.
Ms Atkins told MPs: “Day 95 of this fumbling Labour Government and yet another general debate to talk about a report we talked about three weeks ago.
“That seems to be the golden – or should I say ‘Gray’ – thread running through this Government – lots of talk, but where is the action?”
The shadow health secretary suggested Mr Streeting could have made a “meaningful contribution” to healthcare on Monday by setting out how Labour would meet its “first steps” promise to put on 40,000 extra NHS appointments each week, or by bringing forward the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
She added: “(Lord Darzi’s report) looks backwards but not far enough to mark the last Labour government’s policy and operational failures, because if this Government is serious about reforming the NHS – and I genuinely hope it is – then it and the Secretary of State need to transition quickly from opposing to governing.
“And this must begin… with the language he is choosing to use about the NHS.”
Ms Atkins continued: “Health leaders are raising concerns that his broken narrative is damaging public confidence and will lead to people not coming forward for care… and it is hurting the morale of staff who are working tirelessly for their patients.
“Just as the confected doom and gloom of the new Chancellor (Rachel Reeves) is damaging business confidence, so too does the Health Secretary’s relentlessly negative language risk consequences in real life.”
Former GP Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth), intervening from the Conservative benches, called on leaders to “take the politics out of this debate”.
Ms Atkins replied: “Had (Mr Streeting) come to me and asked me to help him, I genuinely would have.
“The public are hearing this. They want politicians to cut all the flim-flam and the bluster and work together.”
Mr Streeting had earlier said the choice England faced was “NHS reform or no NHS”.
He added: “The first option is for the NHS to continue on its current path, heading down the road to ruin, mismanaged decline, a status quo so poor, that patients are forced to raid their savings to go private.”
He later said: “Just so we’re clear on this side of the House: over my dead body. This Labour Government will always defend our NHS as a public service free at the point of use, so that whenever you fall ill, you never have to worry about the bill.”
The Health Secretary also admitted he needed to confront “left-wing and right-wing orthodoxies” over the need to overhaul the NHS in the wake of the report.
“The Daily Mail agree on the need for health service reform, but attack proposals for public health reform as ‘nanny state’. The Guardian loves prevention, but all this talk about health service reform makes them very nervous,” he said.
“The truth is, the Daily Mail and the Guardian are half right and half wrong, but we all need to face up to the challenges of today.”
His Labour colleague Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) described Lord Darzi’s report as “a pretty accurate diagnosis of the situation that we’re in”.
Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman Helen Morgan said: “The reforms our NHS needs can’t be done on the cheap. Improving access to primary care means investing in more GPs, more NHS dentists and more community pharmacists.
“Boosting productivity means investing in better IT systems, bringing hospitals up to date with the new facilities they need”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel