debates/debates2025-05-06b conversation_10
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-06)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-06b conversation_10

Gregory Stafford:What progress he has made on the abolition of NHS England. \p Wes Streeting: As the Prime Minister and I announced, NHS England will be brought back into the Department to put an end to the duplication, waste and inefficiency resulting from two organisations doing the same job. That is the final nail in the coffin of the disastrous 2012 reorganisation, which led to the longest waiting times, lowest patient satisfaction and most expensive NHS reorganisation in history. Since the announcement, we have set up a joint board, assessed resources and responsibilities across existing organisations, developed proposals about the role, functions and structure of the new centre, and started detailed operational and legislative planning. \p Gregory Stafford: The Secretary of State claims to support change, yet delays to NHS reorganisation, including to the promised abolition of NHS England, suggest otherwise. Is it not the truth, as he outlined in his Guardian article, that he is bogging the system down in a slow, top-heavy restructuring, while resorting to tax rises, instead of delivering the decentralised, locally delivered, value-for-money healthcare that our constituents deserve? \p Wes Streeting: A lot of words and not a lot of sense. We are reforming the NHS and, as a result of these changes, redirecting hundreds of millions of pounds to the frontline. What was the Conservative party’s response to the abolition? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), said it could be a “great thing”, but it

“could be a total disaster”.

Will they let us know when they have made their mind up? \p Anna Dixon: The Lansley reforms were implemented top down by the Conservatives. The idea that the NHS could ever be truly independent, when it is there to serve us—the taxpayer and the general public! Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely the right decision to move funding away from the centre to the frontline to prioritise patients in the NHS’s work? \p Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend has huge experience in this area, and she is absolutely right. What we saw under the Conservatives was bloated bureaucracy—layer upon layer of checkers, when we need more doers. That is why frontline staff, patients and provider leaders all welcome the changes that we are making, so that we can invest more into our frontline. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Edward Argar: The Health Service Journal reports that officials have acknowledged that the first draft of a high-level plan for merging NHS England and DHSC has been delayed. When we ask any written question about the merger, the standard answer seems to be:

“Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to determine the structure and requirements needed to support the creation of a new centre for health and care.”

Even when we ask a question specifically about the size of the transformation team, the answer is virtually identical. The Government either wilfully decide not to answer, or simply do not know. As with so many things, the Government go for the headline-grabbing announcement and talk the talk on reform, without having done the actual work to deliver it. My question to the Secretary of State is simple: when will that first high-level plan for the merger, with a full assessment of costs and savings, be published? \p Wes Streeting: Honestly, the right hon. Member had his chance—he was the Minister who took forward the last reform Act, under the Conservative Government. He failed in that task, and now he turns up without a shred of remorse or a shred of humility, attacking this Government for cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left behind. They are not a party of government—they are not even a party of opposition any more. They are a total irrelevance.