Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Emily Thornberry and John Pugh

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Pugh]

I supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—or, rather, I tabled it independently. I accepted at the time that it was not the most elegant way of dealing with the problem, but I recognise that there is a problem, as do foundation trusts. The cap as it stands has certain perverse consequences, and the NHS cannot fully profit from sources such as intellectual property. NHS profits help to subsidise public services. As the Minister has pointed out, there is no cap on non-foundation trusts, and the current format was to some extent a political compromise because Labour Members raised certain considerations during the passage of the legislation on foundation hospitals. That does not mean that their concerns were not valid at the time.

I am not concerned by the prospect of dramatic privatisation overnight; nor do I think that queue-jumping is the real danger. By abolishing the cap altogether, however, we run the risk that foundation trusts will run on the wrong side of state aid rules, and that their activity will be perceived as economic activity under EU competition law. The more they subsidise general NHS services, the more they will be perceived as engaging in economic activity.

I do not take a doctrinaire view on this issue. Very sensible people, such as Steve Field and the NHS Confederation, have raised the matter. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) raised it, as did, if I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury in a spirit of compromise in Committee, making the point—I think I am quoting her correctly—that the only alternative to a bad cap is not no cap at all.

There is a genuine fear, however, among people who are far more expert than most hon. Members in this field, which is caused by the blurring of the boundaries between public and private hospitals. We could end up theoretically with a private hospital that has 90% of its patients provided by the NHS. I know we cannot end up with an NHS hospital filled by 90% of private patients, but there is a threshold at which things could quite easily start to become complicated. This a critical issue, which will have to be dealt with in the House of Lords.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted me, so let me clarify that I was quoting the Deputy Prime Minister when I said that the only alternative to a bad Bill was not no Bill at all. I was talking about a Bill as opposed to a cap.

[John Pugh]

I may not have paraphrased the hon. Lady correctly, but I believe that the sentiments I described were expressed by her in discussions of a particular amendment on this subject, but we can go and look at the Committee proceedings to find out whether I am right.

It seems to me that what has happened on this occasion is that the Secretary of State has rehearsed the arguments that we have already heard in Committee. That does not advance things massively. He has supplemented that by saying that better efforts should be made to explain how the cap operates by the foundation trusts themselves, which will be more accountable, as I think he said, to the governing body of the foundation trust. That is an explanation and good explanation is to be desired. The point is, however, that expert opinion—independent of this House— perceives this to be a problem, but it has not been addressed.

Neuromuscular Care (North-West)

Debate between Emily Thornberry and John Pugh

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh]

The hon. Lady’s point seems slightly tangential. If her argument is that what is wrong with the arrangements is the current ignorance of GPs about referral pathways, that situation has pre-existed these arrangements and may succeed them. It is an independent issue, is it not? It is not about structures.

[Emily Thornberry]

As the structures currently stand, it is understood by GPs that they can receive back-up, through the specialised services national definition set, from the various networks that have already been established. If the national health service is to be grabbed by the ankles, turned upside down and shaken hard, the problem is that in the ensuing chaos, GPs will be distracted and, in the short term, people with muscular dystrophy might not get the services that they deserve. That is a legitimate concern, which it is only right to lay at the Minister’s door, because it is this Government who will be putting the national health service through that process.

As I have already asked, will the Minister confirm that specialist neuromuscular services will fall under the remit of the national commissioning board? How will the board work with other services, such as community nursing, speech and language therapy, and continuing care and physiotherapy, which I understand will be commissioned by GPs? How will that work, and how will people with muscular dystrophy not fall between the gaps? Will the Minister provide more information about regional commissioning—already mentioned during the debate—which might arise under the national commissioning board? It would be reassuring for many to learn that the national commissioning board might have regional hubs, but we have yet to hear that stated specifically. If it were to be stated this morning, it would be good news for many people.

The other issue that I know the Minister shares my great passion for and interest in is the importance of increasing integration of services. People with the conditions we are discussing are clearly exactly the sort of people who need integrated services, so that they can have assistance in hospital—hopefully as an out-patient—and care in the community. There is a continuing disconnect between social care and health care. We all know that when those services do not connect properly, people end up as an emergency admission. We have already heard that £68.5 million is spent across England on unpaid emergency hospital admissions for people with muscle disease.

It is clear that savings can be made, and the holy grail for all of us is to ensure that there is better integration between the various services—both between primary and secondary care, and social care and health care. The challenge in the near future is to consider exactly how the Health and Social Care Bill will help with that integration. There is concern that, in fact, it will do the opposite.

It is important that the legacy is protected. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign has been working constructively with the 10 NHS specialised commissioning groups across England, and significant progress has been made on improvements to neuromuscular services and on an increase in the number of muscular dystrophy care advisers. In the context of the changes to the national health service and the cutbacks in funding, there is concern that a lot of that good work may fall by the wayside. This morning would be a timely moment for the Minister to reassure us that the legacy will not be lost. Will he reassure me that the work being carried out by the regional specialised commissioning groups will not be put in jeopardy following the proposed reforms for their abolition?