Proceeding contribution from John Pugh (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 April 2011. It occurred during Ministerial statement on NHS Reform.
NHS Reform
I thank the Secretary of State for having the grace and courage to respond to legitimate concerns. Given the agreement that exists in the House—not about the effects of the Bill, on which there is no agreement, but about its aims—does he agree that we should not get hung up about whether substantial changes will in future be referred to as ““tweaking””, ““surgery”” or, possibly, ““surgical tweaking””? Is not the main thing to get a Bill that carries the broad support of Parliament, NHS professionals and the country? We do not need to sell this Bill better; we need to take the spectre of salesmanship out of the NHS.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 526 c774
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Competition General practitioners NHS Patients Modernisation Standards Reform
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:47:13 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_733777
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_733777
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_733777