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

That is a good point. Like the curate's egg, the Bill is good in parts—and bad in parts. I am prepared to acknowledge the commitment on health inequalities but, as I have mentioned, there are contradictions in the Bill, and that is what I seek to highlight. My concern is that the new structures proposed in the Bill move us away from a co-ordinated health service and towards a competition-based health service. Failure has been touted by Ministers as a driver of improvement, but following the latest U-turn, that commitment seems to have been dropped. I would welcome Ministers' views on that. Our concern is that the health service will be left to the worst elements of privatisation, without the supposed benefits of market competition. Members have referred to the British Medical Association and its calls for a co-operative and co-ordinated environment, which an open market would make impossible. When Dr Clare Gerada, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, gave evidence to the Bill Committee, she raised a number of concerns about the clauses that we are discussing—concerns"““about the duplication of care and fragmentation…the under-provision of care once competition starts kicking in, the pace and extent of change, and the capability capacity and competence of GPs””" to deal with the extent of health needs. Most importantly, she said that"““the Bill risks widening health inequalities and could lead to worse patient care””.––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2011; c. 43, Q94.]"