X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Coffee House

Hunt prods Burnham for NHS policy details

19 July 2013

5:43 PM

19 July 2013

5:43 PM

One of the many problems that Andy Burnham has encountered this week is that he has had to spend more time defending his record in the last Labour government than scrutinising the current government’s changes to the health service. He has performed the first task in a rather emotional manner, and the Conservatives may well feel that politically this week has been rather successful. But now they’re going after him on the policy side of things too, perhaps to underline how preoccupied Burnham is with his own reputation.

Jeremy Hunt has this afternoon written a letter to Ed Miliband, seen exclusively by Coffee House, which demands to know whether Labour supports the government’s new hospital inspection regime. The letter says:

Dear Ed,

In light of the serious failings exposed in the last Government’s hospital inspection and ratings system, and in the interests of securing a swift turnaround, I would be grateful if you could clarify the Labour party’s position on some critical issues relating to hospital standards.

As you know, we have appointed a new Chief Inspector of Hospitals to overhaul the inspection process, introducing longer on-site inspections and unannounced visits, larger inspection teams made up of doctors, nurses and patients, and rigorous Ofsted-style ratings. Your Health spokesman Andy Burnham appears to oppose these plans. He refused to support them in the House of Commons this week, and last month issued a public ‘note of caution’ on the Government’s plans to introduce more rigorous NHS inspections, describing them as ‘heavy-handed regulation’ to the NHS Confederation conference.

There is also evidence that he resisted similar attempts to make the inspection system more robust during his time as Secretary of State. Baroness Young, former Chairman of the CQC, told the Francis Inquiry that Andy Burnham blocked her attempts to change the previous flawed regulation system, known as the annual health check:

“The annual health check was … flawed in so many ways that I went and saw the Secretary of State and said I wasn’t prepared to carry on doing it in this way. It was nonsense … the data was old, there was too much reliance on self-assessment. She alleged that ‘common sense went out of the window on occasions’ and ‘it ran the risk of being very inaccurate.’ Critically, she testified that ‘having argued that with the Secretary of State [Andy Burnham], I was told firmly that we weren’t permitted to change it.’ In his evidence to the Francis Inquiry, Andy Burnham acknowledges that this was the case: ‘I recall having a discussion with her about it, and it was the view of the Department at the time that they didn’t want more change.’

There is absolutely no reason why a new policy on hospital inspections cannot be introduced on a bipartisan basis as I know we both share a commitment to ensuring there can never be a repeat of what happened at Mid Staffs. However I am very concerned that Labour still appears to be opposing a policy on hospital inspections that has widespread support and will drive up standards for patients. As such, I would be grateful if you would clarify Labour’s position on the new Chief Inspector of Hospitals as soon as possible.

Best wishes,

Jeremy

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close