UK Parliament / Open data

Health Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from Stephen O'Brien (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 12 October 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Health Bill [Lords].
New clause 13 is a welcome concession resulting from pressure put on the Government, not least by the official Opposition in both Houses. However, it does not go far enough. It amends the National Health Service Act 2006 to allow mental health trusts to get 1.5 per cent. of their income from private care. It leaves all other foundation trusts with the proportion from the base year. As the Minister said, new clause 10 is our reintroduction of the original amendment from the other place; it would allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to allow foundation trusts an exception to the restriction on private income outlined in the 2006 Act. With the lead from the very top, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), we on the Conservative Benches are committed to our NHS as a high-quality service, free at the point of need and open to all. The public have seen and can see our commitment. I am grateful for new clause 13 because it shows that the Government recognise that private income for NHS foundation trusts does not undermine the principles of our NHS. The Minister made that point himself. The history of the cap was best summed up by the former Labour Minister, Lord Warner, who said in another place that it was "anachronistic" and""sops to parts of the Labour party"." It was introduced as a concession to get foundation trusts past the Government’s reactionary Back Benchers; Lord Warner said explicitly that he repented his sins over that issue. Limiting foundation trusts arbitrarily to the proportion of private-to-public income that they received in the base year is inequitable. The base year was 2002-03, the year before the first foundation trusts were authorised. For some foundation trusts, the limitation means 30 per cent., and for others, 5 per cent.; until now, it has meant 0 per cent. for mental health trusts. Worst of all, the limitation prevents many specialist hospitals, such as Great Ormond Street, from becoming foundation trusts. As Labour Members know, private income for NHS foundation trusts is not about rewarding shareholders, partners or staff, but about generating income that can benefit the patients—the vast majority of them NHS patients—of the hospitals. Labour Members might not take my word for it, but this is what their own former Minister, Lord Warner, said about private income:""it is potentially a source of income for trusts that they can use for the benefit of NHS patients"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 656.]" On Third Reading, he went on:""We are moving into a financial climate where the NHS...will need every penny that it can get to meet public expectations"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 936.]" The limitation also impacts adversely on UK plc, hampering our provision of health care to non-UK residents, and on our research base, which is dependent on funding.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

497 c72-3 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top