Nhs

Things are starting to get more awkward for Rishi Sunak — something the Chancellor has long been prepared for. He knew that the early months of the pandemic, in which he gave out billions in taxpayers’ cash, would fade to the rather more difficult landscape he now faces: trying to rein that spending in — and stop ministers from eking more and more out of the Treasury for their own departments.  At this morning’s Treasury questions, Sunak inevitably faced questions about the bombshell dropped by NHS chief Sir Simon Stevens in a select committee hearing that the NHS had been budgeting for a 2.1 per cent pay rise. Katy offers

Is the row over the government’s plan to award only a 1 per cent pay rise to NHS workers as politically toxic as some suggest? Labour has certainly seized on it, with Sir Keir Starmer saying ‘Covid heroes’ deserve a pay rise. But Boris Johnson today defended the raise, saying: ‘What we’ve done is try to give them as much as we can at the present moment… We’ve tried to give the NHS as much as we possibly can.’ He also pointed to wider government investment aimed at helping the health service cope with the pandemic.  The pay ‘rise’ might not be as much of a problem in isolation –

Along with many of my colleagues, I have been arguing for years that the current structure of the NHS cannot survive. Giving the health service endless money won’t make a significant difference, unless its core structures are changed. It is therefore very interesting to see that Matt Hancock, in the middle of the pandemic, has unveiled a package of major changes to healthcare, the essence of which is to reverse the Lansley reforms. One of the reforms the health secretary is taking aim at is the purchaser/provider split, which I have identified in the past as one of the ‘four crumbling pillars of the NHS’. The split involves regional panels

Labour is demanding that Matt Hancock apologise to NHS workers for a ‘disgraceful attack’ on the NHS. In a letter to the Health Secretary, the party’s deputy leader Angela Rayner says Hancock must distance himself from a claim that ‘there is nothing special about the NHS, neither during this pandemic nor at any other time’. She also writes that ‘if you are committed to the protection of our NHS you must take action immediately to assure the NHS and the British people’ that he doesn’t think ‘we should not be grateful for the NHS or thank the NHS and its staff for their work during this pandemic’. This sounds serious,

It has taken the Conservatives an entire decade to recover from their last attempt to legislate for a reorganisation of the NHS. Now, they’re proposing to unpick some of what’s left of that Health and Social Care Act.  Details of a Health and Care White Paper leaked to the excellent Andy Cowper at Health Policy Insight last week revealed that ministers want to grab more control of the health service overall, as well as individual foundation trusts and matters such as water fluoridation. The Health Secretary will become significantly more powerful. Some of this forthcoming legislation contains changes NHS England has long wanted and been expecting, such as abolishing Andrew Lansley’s

There are plenty of different ways in which Matt Hancock, the health secretary, can be criticised for his handling of the Covid-19 crisis. Track and trace didn’t work, lockdowns were sporadic and probably too late, and the messaging wobbled all over the place. But comparing the British vaccination drive to France and the rest of the EU? That was completely right. When Hancock remarked on Sky News yesterday that the UK had vaccinated more people in just three days than France had managed in total, his critics on social media went into a predictable meltdown. It’s not a competition or a race lectured the finger-waggers. We have only done one

More than 75 per cent of England will be in the top tier of coronavirus restrictions from midnight after Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced a large number of areas would move up into Tier 4. This is part of an attempt to contain the spread of the new variant of Covid-19, as hospitals come under what Hancock described as ‘significant pressure’ to treat surging numbers of patients with the virus. Hancock was speaking on what he described as a day of ‘mixed emotions’, and he was naturally keen to emphasise the difference that the approval of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine would make to the length of time people will be subject

Gay conversion therapy has been heading for a ban for a few years now, with Boris Johnson repeatedly pledging to stop the ‘absolutely abhorrent’ practice. The government is working on the details of such a ban, which is not without its problems, particularly when it comes to therapy for transgender people. But it would be the first time the government has got at all involved in the world of therapy and counselling, which is not currently subject to statutory regulation. Ministers’ current position is that government regulation of the sector would not be ‘proportionate or effective’. It may well be that the current network of organisations with which counsellors and

If the Keira Bell judgment did not sufficiently expose the shortcomings of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) – the only NHS clinic in England for children presenting with gender dysphoria – then another recent study published after that key ruling must surely now trigger a full-blown inquiry. The study followed the progress of 44 children referred by GIDS for puberty blockers when they were aged between 12 and 15. All except one – 98 per cent of the cohort – progressed to cross sex-hormones. The lead author was Dr Polly Carmichael, GIDS director. The research has yet to be peer reviewed, but let’s be clear: this was a study of patients at GIDS, and the