Skip to main content

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

I agree entirely that that is what we need to create. The systems that we are describing should transcend all organisational boundaries and apply right across the piece. Different organisations will seek to achieve the same ends in different ways, but the principles should transcend organisational boundaries and apply equally to the private sector and the NHS. In that respect, the GMC affiliates could play quite an interesting role. Originally, it was proposed that that should happen at trust or local community level, but following discussion with various stakeholders, the regional or sub-regional level would seem to be the right one. We therefore want to take the proposals forward carefully to ensure that they do what we hope they will, and I hope that they will achieve some of the aims that the hon. Gentleman has alluded to. The Government’s proposals also include setting up an independent body to adjudicate the final stages of the fitness-to-practise process. That will initially apply to doctors, but the other regulatory bodies will be invited to establish a similar separation between their adjudication and other functions. In addition, we propose to strengthen the current system of appraisal for doctors so that it can become an adequate basis on which to carry out the periodic revalidation of their generic fitness to practise, with separate arrangements for specialist recertification overseen by the appropriate royal medical colleges. Finally, for other professions, we propose that revalidation should be carried out by employers or other appropriate means. When we leave this issue, as I told the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, we need to put in place a system that will stand the test of time and which constitutes a generational settlement on these issues. In this day and age, it is not enough to tell the public that we have done the job; the system that we put in place must be seen to be transparent and to uphold the public interest. That is why there should be parity between the professional and lay appointees to each of the regulators. We can, however, deal with that issue in the parliamentary debate that follows our proposals. Although it is important that we hear all the views on the issue, it would surprise me if parliamentarians of all parties did not agree that upholding, and being seen to uphold, the public interest was crucial; indeed, it is in the interests of professional self-regulation, because it will strengthen the image of self-regulation in the mind of the public. Indeed, we should remember that we are not talking about Government regulation, because those appointed to the regulatory bodies would all be independent. I have spoken for a considerable time, but I appreciate that I have given only a superficial summary of the action programme that the Government have set in hand to address the many thoughtful recommendations of the Shipman, Ayling, Neale and Kerr/Haslam inquiries. Some of those actions are already in hand, and we are working closely with regulatory bodies and patient, NHS and professional groups to implement the remainder. Unfortunately, we can never give an absolute assurance regarding criminal behaviour of the kind perpetrated by a Shipman. However, the action that we are setting in hand will make it highly unlikely that any future criminal could go on for as long without being detected. We can achieve that without disrupting the excellent care that the vast majority of our health professionals give their patients day in, day out. Let me conclude by thanking those hon. Members who are here for the debate for their interest in the issue. I cannot stress enough how important the determination of those hon. Members who represent constituencies in which Harold Shipman practised for so many years has been in ensuring that these matters are adequately concluded. The Government will eventually bring the issue to the right conclusion so that my hon. Friends’ constituents can—this is very important—draw this awful chapter in the history of their towns to a close, and that applies particularly to Hyde. We have some way to go yet, but we are making clear progress towards our goal.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c520-1WH 
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