Health Bill [HL]

The amendment has nothing to do with returns to Richmond House or additional bureaucracy. I was quite astonished to hear the contributions from noble Lords opposite that that is the effect they thought I was after. It is a way of addressing the cry that is bound to go up from NHS staff of, ““What on earth are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to obey the law that has been worded in this way? What do these words mean in practice? What force do they have?””. I am none the wiser following the Minister’s reply. For example, if I were in a charge of a trust or a PCT, I would worry what the phrase ““a comprehensive health service”” means. I could have regard to the constitution in my own way but I might not be certain that I was doing so properly. It is not a question of listing every possible action that people need to take; it is a question of making clear what deliberative processes NHS staff should go through and the kinds of considerations that need to be borne in mind. I am left wondering whether the constitution has the kind of bite the Minister hopes it will have or whether it is, when all is said and done, a set of warm words. That is the point at issue. I fear I shall have to look at the matter again and see whether I can express my concern in a different way prior to the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 7 withdrawn. Clause 2 agreed. Amendment 8 not moved.