James Duddridge speaks out on blood campaign

AN MP has said the Echo’s campaign to keep blood testing local has created uncertainty - and the public are more concerned than they need to be.

James Duddridge, Tory MP for Rochford and Southend East, spoke in favour of pathology services moving to a centralised base, likely to be at Bedford Hospital some 88 miles away.

He told the Echo: “The question isn’t should it stay or should it go.

“It ought to be can we get a better quality of service for less money? There are definitely advantages to centralising some services.

“One of the helpful things to come out from the Echo’s campaign is raising the issue with the public and more information.

“We need the information out there to make a rational decision.

“The public have been quite reactionary without being fully informed. People are even more concerned than they need to be.”

Our campaign has had the backing of more than 120 hospital consultants and 90 GPs who all believe its the wrong decision and fear a rise in turn around times for doctors to get results.

The public has also strongly supported our campaign with 5,200 signatures online and about 2,000 paper petitions already sent in.

However, Mr Duddridge said: “The Government’s Carter report 2005 makes the case for centralising services for lower frequency (non urgent) testing to ensure consistency.

“It’s about improving the service overall and I don’t think you can say its to bring up standards of other services at the expense of currently good services in Southend and Basildon.

“The consultants interest is clearly with the hospital, which is understandable, and the GPs have followed their lead.

“But the GPs on the CCGs are making the decision based on overall patient benefit, both financial and service.

”The important thing here is accuracy and speed and that any money saving goes back into patient services.

“We’ve got to be more comfortable about change and innovation in the NHS.”

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:02am Wed 13 Feb 13

Nebs says...

The consultants interest is clearly with the hospital, which is understandable, and the GPs have followed their lead.

I'd have thought that the consultants and GPs interest is clearly with the patients.
The consultants interest is clearly with the hospital, which is understandable, and the GPs have followed their lead. I'd have thought that the consultants and GPs interest is clearly with the patients. Nebs
  • Score: 4

9:27am Wed 13 Feb 13

the citizen says...

Voters, remember the MP's who came out in favour of moving our blood services when you next go to the ballot box. According to the full article in yesterday Echo even this fool's recollections are flawed. I am sure he has full confidence in his private health care provision - if he has it, of course. Have you, James ?

His saying "It's a good way to show how competition works." says it all. I don't want my blood tests to be the subject of a competition. In a competition there are winners and losers, and anyway the example he used was changed back to local testing after problems. That's right, the procedures were CHANGED back because there were too many errors raising concerns. You need to be open to change James - just like you said!
It is always about money - always!

BTW this is the same MP who voted with the Govt regarding changes to marriage definition.

Totally unconnected matters - except the connection that both are supported by this particular MP which may give an insight into his ability to represent people.

Bye, bye James ! Southend East need a change of MP - and you should be open to change James.
Voters, remember the MP's who came out in favour of moving our blood services when you next go to the ballot box. According to the full article in yesterday Echo even this fool's recollections are flawed. I am sure he has full confidence in his private health care provision - if he has it, of course. Have you, James ? His saying "It's a good way to show how competition works." says it all. I don't want my blood tests to be the subject of a competition. In a competition there are winners and losers, and anyway the example he used was changed back to local testing after problems. That's right, the procedures were CHANGED back because there were too many errors raising concerns. You need to be open to change James - just like you said! It is always about money - always! BTW this is the same MP who voted with the Govt regarding changes to marriage definition. Totally unconnected matters - except the connection that both are supported by this particular MP which may give an insight into his ability to represent people. Bye, bye James ! Southend East need a change of MP - and you should be open to change James. the citizen
  • Score: 4

9:33am Wed 13 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Think i would put faith in 120 Hospital consultants and 90 GP's in front of the 1 Member of parliament who is probably told what to say by someone else.
Think i would put faith in 120 Hospital consultants and 90 GP's in front of the 1 Member of parliament who is probably told what to say by someone else. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 5

10:08am Wed 13 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

I will go with the expert opinion of consultants and GPs over government bean counters.
I will go with the expert opinion of consultants and GPs over government bean counters. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 5

10:12am Wed 13 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

And I agree, it's time for a change of MP in Southend East. Duddridge has never represented his constituents' interests, instead he always toes his party line.
I will give him credit for one thing, he voted in favour of equal marriage - BUT that was a free vote and you can bet your bottom dollar if it hadn't been a free vote - and his party opposed the bill - he'd have voted with his party instead of with his conscience.
And I agree, it's time for a change of MP in Southend East. Duddridge has never represented his constituents' interests, instead he always toes his party line. I will give him credit for one thing, he voted in favour of equal marriage - BUT that was a free vote and you can bet your bottom dollar if it hadn't been a free vote - and his party opposed the bill - he'd have voted with his party instead of with his conscience. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 3

10:29am Wed 13 Feb 13

norfolkbroad says...

How unconcerned about his constituents can one MP be?VOTE HIM OUT at the next general election - as everyone has said, TIME TO GO! And whilst we wait for the next election, we watch the Tories dismantle our NHS even more....
How unconcerned about his constituents can one MP be?VOTE HIM OUT at the next general election - as everyone has said, TIME TO GO! And whilst we wait for the next election, we watch the Tories dismantle our NHS even more.... norfolkbroad
  • Score: 4

11:00am Wed 13 Feb 13

dhd says...

How long would it take to travel to Bedford? It's taking hours just to get out of Southend this morning because of accidents. The potholes are terrible and the transport vehicle could become damaged if they hit one and unable to travel. What happens if they need quick results. Also whilst they continue building around here it's going to get more grid locked than ever. Madness.
How long would it take to travel to Bedford? It's taking hours just to get out of Southend this morning because of accidents. The potholes are terrible and the transport vehicle could become damaged if they hit one and unable to travel. What happens if they need quick results. Also whilst they continue building around here it's going to get more grid locked than ever. Madness. dhd
  • Score: 1

1:31pm Wed 13 Feb 13

emcee says...

Up until now, I have had no reason to have any complaint about Mr Duddridge. However, his views are a blatent backing of the Government's "anything goes to save a few quid" policy. Now, I have no problem with the Government cutting budgets to try and get us out of the mess we were left in. However, Mr Duddridge needs to understand that this is a health issue where the trust of the people should be in the hands of consultants and GPs, not MPs. His words just go to show that he is an MP who has no confidence or respect in the advice of consultants and GPs who job it is to ensure the health of his constituents.
Up until now, I have had no reason to have any complaint about Mr Duddridge. However, his views are a blatent backing of the Government's "anything goes to save a few quid" policy. Now, I have no problem with the Government cutting budgets to try and get us out of the mess we were left in. However, Mr Duddridge needs to understand that this is a health issue where the trust of the people should be in the hands of consultants and GPs, not MPs. His words just go to show that he is an MP who has no confidence or respect in the advice of consultants and GPs who job it is to ensure the health of his constituents. emcee
  • Score: 2

3:52pm Wed 13 Feb 13

perini says...

The man is an ignorant mis-informed fool, especially as he seems to think that his opinion is better than a group of consultants who deal with the results of this issue on a daily basis!
The man is an ignorant mis-informed fool, especially as he seems to think that his opinion is better than a group of consultants who deal with the results of this issue on a daily basis! perini
  • Score: 3

4:19pm Wed 13 Feb 13

the citizen says...

Of course he is supremely qualified to have an informed opinion on this matter. After all he has a degree in Government from Essex University and he has been a banker by profession, and a failed front bencher lightweight who was returned to the back benches in a re-shuffle.
What more do we need to know about the insights of a (to quote Robin Day) "here today, gone tomorrow" politician against the views of Doctors and Consultants with many years successful experience in the realm of their vocation and training and clinical expertise.
Of course he is supremely qualified to have an informed opinion on this matter. After all he has a degree in Government from Essex University and he has been a banker by profession, and a failed front bencher lightweight who was returned to the back benches in a re-shuffle. What more do we need to know about the insights of a (to quote Robin Day) "here today, gone tomorrow" politician against the views of Doctors and Consultants with many years successful experience in the realm of their vocation and training and clinical expertise. the citizen
  • Score: 2

4:43pm Wed 13 Feb 13

firedog says...

We havent heard anything from A-mess on this fiasco.
We havent heard anything from A-mess on this fiasco. firedog
  • Score: 1

4:49pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Iamcross says...

after reading this i have less faith in this goverment than ever, when we are all on our hands and knees, mps like james would have already left the country. he does not have a clue. and i look forward to voteing him out.
after reading this i have less faith in this goverment than ever, when we are all on our hands and knees, mps like james would have already left the country. he does not have a clue. and i look forward to voteing him out. Iamcross
  • Score: 1

11:27pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Nebs says...

firedog wrote:
We havent heard anything from A-mess on this fiasco.
He probably hasn't been told what his opinion is yet.
[quote][p][bold]firedog[/bold] wrote: We havent heard anything from A-mess on this fiasco.[/p][/quote]He probably hasn't been told what his opinion is yet. Nebs
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Localgirltoo says...

Whilst I agree that many health services can be centralised and therefore save money Mr Dudderdges naive comment that we are doing this to get a better service is actually naive and ill informed
We have a superb service locally with many safeguards and careful monitoring of many conditions by local hospital consultants
A lot of routine test become very urgent due to this monitoring
As we cannot have a better service we are therefore only trying to get a cheaper one
The way in which a new contract has been awarded and a standing contract cancelled without all the "safety elements" being put in place until after( and only due to the ruckus created ) is also naive and shows people playing a tendering game that have no idea how to play
Local GPs are not adverse to change they do so every year as the way they are expected to deliver healthcare is tweaked by government and have shown to be both responsive and innovative in doing so.
They and their hospital colleagues are truly despairing of the disintegration of their ability to provide high quality healthcare
The fact they they are supporting each other in this campaign shows the extended teamwork that has been built up in this area and the level of communication that does exist between primary and secondary care
This move will not only offer a poorer service the inevitable disintegration of this relationship will also mean in the longer term it will not save any money and is like.to cost more and increase admissions
Whilst I agree that many health services can be centralised and therefore save money Mr Dudderdges naive comment that we are doing this to get a better service is actually naive and ill informed We have a superb service locally with many safeguards and careful monitoring of many conditions by local hospital consultants A lot of routine test become very urgent due to this monitoring As we cannot have a better service we are therefore only trying to get a cheaper one The way in which a new contract has been awarded and a standing contract cancelled without all the "safety elements" being put in place until after( and only due to the ruckus created ) is also naive and shows people playing a tendering game that have no idea how to play Local GPs are not adverse to change they do so every year as the way they are expected to deliver healthcare is tweaked by government and have shown to be both responsive and innovative in doing so. They and their hospital colleagues are truly despairing of the disintegration of their ability to provide high quality healthcare The fact they they are supporting each other in this campaign shows the extended teamwork that has been built up in this area and the level of communication that does exist between primary and secondary care This move will not only offer a poorer service the inevitable disintegration of this relationship will also mean in the longer term it will not save any money and is like.to cost more and increase admissions Localgirltoo
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree