Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

I wish to speak to my amendments 1219 and 1220, and against amendment 10. The House is right to be sceptical about the blessings of the internal market in health. It is right to be worried about price competition, which everyone thinks is a race to the bottom. It is right to be concerned about the reckless extension of ““any willing provider””, and it is correct in fearing that health services will be increasingly exposed to competition law, including EU competition law. It should fear the huge transactional costs that will be incurred in the hardening of the commissioner-provider split. It should fear the threat to integration, and it should fear cherry-picking, particularly in a narrow tariff system based on payment by results. It should also fear the blurring of the difference between public and private hospitals, and the financial incentives given to the private sector under the banner of choice. That is why I dislike the greater part of what Tony Blair did to the NHS. Those who are now Opposition Members voted for all that, and that is where we are now: it is the default position. As one Opposition Member said, Labour has put all the bricks in place. A few moments ago we witnessed the strange anomaly of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) complaining about a feature of foundation trusts—their ability to borrow on the private market—which I consider to be a direct consequence of Labour legislation. The choice for the House is not between Aneurin Bevan's NHS and the Bill, but between Blair's NHS and Secretary of State's version. If I were to sum it up neatly, I would say that the Secretary of State's version most closely resembled Blairism with clearer and more equitable rules. First, there is an overt sector regulator instead of the powerful covert regulating body, the Co-operation and Competition Panel, which has been making all the decisions that Monitor will make in a more overt way. Secondly, there is the outlawing of subsidy to the private sector, which is perfectly possible: the Secretary of State is not minded to take such action at present, but current legislation does not prohibit him from doing so. Thirdly, as Members must acknowledge, the Bill makes a clear attempt to forfend cherry-picking and protect clinical networks by safeguarding integrated provision. It is possible to have an argument about how well that is done, but there is certainly an explicit intention to do it—as, to be fair, there was in some of the activities of the CCP, although in that instance the constraints were somewhat weaker. Fourthly, since the pause a clear attempt has been made to ensure that Monitor merely regulates, without performing a strategic role in promoting much except the interests of patients. It functions as a regulator and adjudicator on what it is intended to do, rather than occupying an unaccountable strategic role in promoting competition. Clearly much will depend on the mandate that it continues to be given and on its personnel: that will vary over time, and we should be watchful in that regard. I recently had the benefit—as I think other Members have, too—of the legal advice of 38 Degrees, which is in danger of rapidly becoming the provisional wing of the ““Evan Harris organisation.”” I carefully read what Mr Roderick said, and I would like to share the details of his comments with the House. He says:"““contracting out services to the private sector is anything but a novel proposition in the NHS””" and"““the government has for some years rolled out the policy of Any Qualified Provider””." Presumably, that is a reference to the previous Government, not the current one. Mr Roderick also says:"““the application of procurement law is not by any means new to the NHS””." Referring again to Labour party principles, he says:"““the current internal Principles and Rules for Cooperation and Competition””—" which were set up by Labour—"““seek to inject…promotion of choice and competition principles into the operation of the NHS””." On the thorny subject of the definition of ““undertaking””, which we debated ad nauseam in Committee, he has this to say:"““The NHS has already developed a structure whereby it is more likely than not that NHS Trusts are undertakings for the purposes of competition””." Mr Roderick is often cited by Labour Members as representing independent legal advice, but that is what he says. He concludes by saying that Labour's"““recent reforms…have done much to alter””" the basic"““landscape, even in the absence of legislative change.””" As we have both commissioning and a mixed economy—people are not saying that we ought not to have such an economy—there is a chance that there will be challenges from disappointed providers, and we must try to understand how that would go. In terms of EU law it does not matter how many providers there are out there, as even one will do, and it does not even have to be in the UK. The law can be applied in such circumstances. If these issues are to be taken up by providers who are disappointed in one context or another, it is better for that to be handled by a sector regulator such as Monitor than by the Office of Fair Trading, which would be the default situation.