I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. He is absolutely right.
The Secretary of State's duty to secure and provide a comprehensive health service is a key issue and needs protecting in full. It should not be changed at all. Why are we changing it if is already acceptable? I am sure that we will revisit the matter tomorrow.
Although the Government have supposedly made concessions, recognising that attempting to privatise the NHS just as the utilities were privatised in the 1980s would not be acceptable to the public, they have changed tack, not direction. Opening up the NHS to EU competition law may dramatically increase the amount of capital available to bring into our health service, but ultimately that capital will flow back to the investors at a profit, at the expense of patients and the UK taxpayer. That will only increase income and health care inequalities even further—another way in which the Secretary of State's duty will not be met. It is clear that the NHS cannot survive the Bill. What the NHS needs is appropriate reform and proper accountability, but definitely not an opening up of the market in this way.
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Debbie Abrahams
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c206 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:20:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766329
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766329
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766329