Skip to main content

1-20 of 1,440 results for subject:Patients

Session X
2005-06
Subject X
NHS

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

NHS (1,440)
More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

What action they propose to take to ensure that National Health Service patients referred by their general practitioner for surgery are treated equally and fairly, regardless of whether they smoke.

Asked by
Lord Naseby (Conservative)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
7 November 2006
Reference
7928; 686 c136WA
House
House of Lords

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party feel that the scheme should be independent, but we are proposing something different. We are proposing that when the NHS receives a complaint, it takes ownership of it and engages positively and constructively with the individual concerned, rather than passing...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c582
House
House of Commons

All we are suggesting is that the person who oversees the investigation should be independent of the trust. That is not an expensive option; it is certainly not as expensive as the Government believe—a figure of £41 million has been mentioned. It is absolute nonsense to say that what we...

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c582
House
House of Commons

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman again that there was a very significant majority in this House when the matter was voted on on Third Reading.

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c583
House
House of Commons

That does not make it right.

Member
Graham Stuart (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c583
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman says that that does not make it right, but that is what matters in our parliamentary process—and if he has plans to change it, I would be interested to hear them. As there was a majority of 95 in favour of our proposals, having made amendments such...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c583
House
House of Commons

Let me put my point to the Minister in another way. This Bill is a wasted opportunity, as is suggested by the Government’s amendments, because there is nothing in it that cannot already happen now. Trusts can investigate themselves now, and the NHS Litigation Authority can make an offer now....

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c583
House
House of Commons

I believe that the amendments that we have made to the Bill give precisely that. Because patients will be able to read in full their investigation report, they will decide for themselves whether or not that investigation has credibility. If they are not persuaded that it has, their statutory rights...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c583-4
House
House of Commons

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. How do he and the Government plan to measure this culture change in the NHS? Are there means in place that will enable the House and those outside to see whether the Minister is right,...

Member
Graham Stuart (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c584
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. We are clear that we want the establishment of this scheme to lead to a much-improved experience for the patient and to a reduction in the costs paid by the NHS in fighting clinical negligence claims. I am happy to give a...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c584-5
House
House of Commons

The Minister said that one of the outcomes that he seeks is a reduction in the pay-outs made by trusts. Even if he is right and the Government’s proposed system effects a cultural change, is it not possible that there may be an increase in pay-outs because of an NHS...

Member
Graham Stuart (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c585
House
House of Commons

The Minister is going back on himself in one respect, because the whole point of the scheme is that it should provide a genuine alternative to litigation. One key reason why people go to court is because they want to establish the facts in an independent manner. If this scheme...

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c587-9
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman is right. My predecessor acknowledged that this scheme may, by facilitating access to redress, lead to more people bringing forward cases and fewer people abandoning cases. As the hon. Gentleman knows because he was on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, a high rate of cases are...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c585-6
House
House of Commons

Yes, I can. It will be the trust’s responsibility to carry out the investigation locally.

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c589
House
House of Commons

In the light of the Government amendment in lieu, will the Minister explain why he will not allow that separation to be spelled out on the face of the Bill?

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c589
House
House of Commons

I am happy to do so. I do indeed stand by what I said in Committee, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has in mind a more rigid separation than we do. As I described in my opening remarks, we believe that there will be discussion between the scheme...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c589
House
House of Commons

I thank the Minister for that clarification. For the record, I am not suggesting a rigid structure—far from it. All I am suggesting is that the function of fact-finding should be confined to the trust investigating at the fact-finding stage. That should not prevent correspondence, liaison and communication between the...

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c589
House
House of Commons

It is because we have in mind a unified, coherent scheme wherein trusts work closely with the scheme authority to ensure both that thorough and detailed investigation reports are produced and that, based on those reports, correct offers of settlement are made. We have in mind a single scheme, not...

Member
Andy Burnham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c589-90
House
House of Commons

I suggest to the Minister that his remarks are somewhat contradictory. He has made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he accepts that the fact-finding stage will remain just that—a process to determine the facts—and it will then be up to the NHSLA to assess liability. I therefore cannot...

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c590
House
House of Commons

I take it from that response—if I am wrong, I invite the Minister to correct me—that the report would be restricted to the fact-finding stage and the investigation undertaken by the trust.

Member
John Baron (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c590
House
House of Commons