Proceeding contribution from Andy Burnham (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 21 June 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Shipman Inquiry.
Shipman Inquiry
Yes, I agree. The package of reform that we introduced in February does retain the system of independent self-regulation and suggests a parity between lay and professional representation within the main regulatory bodies and that those appointees should be independently appointed. It is important to ensure that the public have confidence that the regulatory system balances the public interest alongside professional standards. The system that we have proposed would achieve that aim, but there are different views on that and I will continue to discuss the matter with the medical profession. It is not in the interests of any profession for a closed discussion to take place on an issue of such import. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) rightly said, we are discussing matters of patient and public safety and it is important that there is and is seen to be openness, transparency and balance in the way we do so. I do not want to mention any particular regulator, but I have to be honest and say that I have seen evidence that some professions can become too inward in the discussions that they have about regulatory matters among themselves. At times, they are not sufficiently outward facing in the way in which they consider public safety. I do not want to go into detail, but the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) may know to what I am referring. It is important that the professionals’ role in self-regulation is balanced with the voice of the lay representative, but we can discuss those matters further as the debate progresses. Today's debate is about the Shipman inquiry, but I will mention in passing the work of three other inquiries—the Ayling, Neale, and Kerr/Haslam inquiries—that also deal with the abuse of trust by doctors. The details differ, but the underlying issues are similar: the failure of those in authority in the NHS to take repeated expressions of concern seriously about the actions of trusted health professionals, and to take effective action to protect patients. In responding to the fifth report of the Shipman inquiry, we found it sensible to consider at the same time the related recommendations of the three other inquiries, and I propose to do the same today. I know that the colleague of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, has a constituency interest in these matters. Indeed, he wrote to me a few weeks ago and asked whether we could have time for a Government debate on the issue. Unfortunately, it has fallen on a day when I believe he is out of the country, but I put my appreciation of his suggestion of a debate on the record.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 461 c511-2WH
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Complaints Coroners Inquiries Homicide Legislation General practitioners NHS Patients Protection Prescription drugs Regulation Registration of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships Harold Shipman Tribunal of Inquiry Shipman, Harold
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-04-22 09:40:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405050
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405050
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_405050