Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Ann Keen (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 9 March 2010. It occurred during Opposition day on Health Care in London.


Health Care in London

First, let me say what a pleasure it is to be part of the debate with the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) this evening. The case for change in London is undeniable. When Lord Darzi started the process of reviewing the NHS in the capital, London was consistently rated as the worst of the 10 strategic health authorities. Its rates were among the worst for mortality, waiting times, quality measures and patient experience. It is impossible to argue that that was an acceptable state of affairs. Much has been said about inequality in health tonight, particularly by the Conservative party. That is pleasing because I believe that until Labour came into government in 1997, the words "inequality in health" were not allowed to be uttered in the Department of Health. Londoners deserve, at the very least, the same chances and the same level of care and treatment that their family and friends in other parts of the country receive. That is what Healthcare for London is about. The massive task of turning health care in London around is not led by politicians in Westminster, the Government or civil servants in Whitehall. It is all run by clinicians—doctors, nurses and other dedicated health care professionals on the ground—in close consultation with the communities they serve. The Healthcare for London framework for action was developed in response to that, and the case for change and the recommendations for responding to it were accepted by the public. Primary care trusts consulted on the case for change and received more than 5,000 responses. We had about 40,000 visitors in all to the website and to meetings and roadshows. The public were clearly in favour of our making a set of changes built on considerations of quality, safety, outcomes and patient experience. A joint London overview and scrutiny committee that represented all 33 boroughs was formed, and it agreed the proposals with recourse to the Secretary of State referral. That gives the proposals local legitimacy and means that we can be held to account for their delivery.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
507 c211-2 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disadvantaged Cost effectiveness Closures Hospitals Health services Expenditure Greater London General practitioners NHS Management Standards Reorganisation Accident and emergency departments Per capita costs Health centres Treatment centres London Strategic Health Authority Olympic Games 2012
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk