Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Simon Burns and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will not give way, because other hon. Members wish to speak and the debate finishes in 20 minutes.

To my mind, the private patient cap and the proposed new restrictions are both unnecessary and damaging. Indeed, I know that this will drive some Opposition Members potty, but the former Labour Minister responsible for the cap, Lord Warner, repented his sins in the other place, describing it as

“wrong and detrimental to the NHS.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 936.]

I urge Opposition Members not to repeat that mistake and to heed Lord Warner’s advice. I appreciate that the Opposition Benches are not full of champions of Lord Warner—particularly not at that end of the Chamber from which we heard the earlier comments about him—but he is a respected former Labour Health Minister and I would suggest that he knows what he is talking about.

Let me deal briefly with two final points that were made by the hon. Members for Islington South and Finsbury and for St Ives about the safeguards that are in place to offer protection and ensure that NHS patients would not lose out with the removal of the cap. First, the NHS commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups would be responsible for ensuring that NHS patients are offered prompt and high-quality care, and that good use is made of NHS resources, whoever provides care, through robust contracting arrangements. NHS patients will also maintain their right in the NHS constitution to start treatment within 18 weeks of referral. Secondly, as foundation trusts do not have shareholders and cannot distribute surpluses externally, and as their principal legal purpose will remain to serve the NHS, all proceeds from non-NHS work would be reinvested in the organisation, ultimately adding to the level and quality of the NHS service.

The Bill will make FTs more accountable and transparent to their public and NHS staff. Our commitment that FTs will produce separate accounts for their NHS and NHS private-funded services—as well as Monitor’s use of its regulatory powers to ensure a level playing field between providers—will also help to avoid any risk of NHS resources cross-subsidising private care, thereby protecting NHS money. I believe that those five safeguards will protect NHS patients and the NHS, and will not lead to the situation that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury described in her speech.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not mean in any way to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe what he has just said, but what if he is wrong? It is all very well for him to say, “We’re going to lift the private patient cap—we have these safeguards and I believe they’re sufficient to ensure that NHS patients won’t suffer,” and he may be right. However, the difficulty is that he may be wrong, so why are we taking this risk at a time like this? What is the point? What is the benefit?

[Mr Burns]

I do not think that this will come as a surprise to the hon. Lady, but I do not think that I am wrong, and I say that for the following reasons. First, there has never been a cap on NHS trusts, and the problems that she has speculated about during this debate have never occurred where there is not a cap. Secondly, the reasons that I have outlined would suggest to me that there will not be a problem, particularly as the one hospital that I singled out—the Royal Marsden—has an income cap of 30.7%. Nobody is suggesting that NHS patients are suffering as a result of that, and that is where a substantial income comes from non-NHS work. Finally, the five safeguards that I have highlighted will be powerful measures to ensure that what she describes will not happen.

For those reasons, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives did not press his new clause to a vote. I would also hope that, on reflection and having made her points, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury will resist the temptation to press her amendment to a Division. I fear, however, that she is not going to heed my advice, and she will regret it.

Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Simon Burns and Emily Thornberry

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you can rest assured that I am doing my bit. If only Opposition Members would listen, they would get the plot.

As the changes we are making are substantial and significant, we have decided to recommit relevant parts of the Bill to Committee. I can tell the House that we expect to make around 160 amendments to the Bill, which we will table in good time. We will also go further and publish briefing notes to help explain the amendments to parliamentarians and those who follow our proceedings outside.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

When?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, rather like a Greek chorus that ill-befits her, asks when. The answer is that we expect to table the amendments by 23 June, which, if it helps her, is in two days’ time. That is despite the fact that many previous Bills—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) should listen to this because it has some direct relevance that she will not like. We are doing this despite the fact that many previous Bills were not recommitted under the previous Government despite their having undergone significant change. For example, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill in 2007 had 54 new clauses and three new schedules added by Government amendment, but rather than returning it to Committee the previous Government added them on Report. The Planning Bill of 2007-08 had 29 new clauses and three new schedules added by Government amendment; again, rather than return that Bill to Committee, the previous Government added the clauses on Report. Indeed, a Bill has not been recommitted for eight years since the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in 2003.

No fair-minded person can claim that we are not subjecting the Bill to the closest possible scrutiny. Our recommitting the Bill will give hon. Members additional time to examine parts of the Bill that the Government propose to change. Of course, hon. Members will have further opportunity to scrutinise the entire Bill on Report in the Commons and the Bill will receive full scrutiny in another place. We do not believe that it is necessary for the entire Bill to be recommitted—[Hon. Members: “Why not?”] If hon. Members will listen they will find out why not. We do not believe that it is necessary for the entire Bill to be recommitted in order for proper scrutiny to take place. Indeed, we feel very strongly that that would unnecessarily delay the progress of the Bill to the ultimate detriment of patients. It is now time to give greater clarity and direction to staff and patients. As Professor Steve Field said in the Future Forum report:

“It is time for the pause to end.”

Professor Field is not alone in the opinion that now is the time to move forward and to enable proper and thorough scrutiny of those parts of the Bill that will change but without delaying the Bill’s passage beyond what is absolutely necessary. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges said in its response to the Future Forum report:

“We hope the Government will now accept the Future Forum’s recommendations in full and move swiftly to make the changes to the Bill and the proposals that are required”.

The King’s Fund has also emphasised the need to avoid unnecessary delay. It said:

“The ‘pause’ has served the NHS, its staff and patients well”—