Exactly; I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
The Secretary of State, like the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is fond of quoting the Future Forum. I have a quote from Professor Steve Field that I hope will be of assistance to the House when it comes to discussion of the cap. He said in evidence to the Committee:"““if you opened the cap, it made you more likely to be under attack from EU law, competition and Monitor””.––[Official Report, Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2011; c. 14, Q24.]"
That is one of the arguments that he used. If the Future Forum is concerned about this being another reason why we should not lift the cap, I hope that the Minister will at least listen to its arguments.
As we heard in Committee, a number of criticisms have been made on both sides of the House about the details of the cap and how it is implemented. Indeed, it is common ground that there ought to be some changes to it. We have no problem about changing and modifying the cap and making it more appropriate, but we do not understand why, just because the cap needs changing, it is simply being lifted completely.
A parallel can be drawn with the carbon emissions cap. If I were working in the Potteries in Staffordshire, I am sure that I would believe that the carbon emissions cap was unfair and went against my personal business. One would need to look at the cap and change it as appropriate in order to make it work properly; one would not get rid of it completely just because there are criticisms of it, unless one had another agenda.
The question is why on earth the Government are considering allowing as many private patients as wish to do so to go into our national health service at a time of crisis, pushing out national health service patients. [Interruption.] If the Minister believes that that is wrong, I will be interested to hear an intervention from him in which I hope he will be able to give us a complete assurance that that will not happen. The fact of the matter is that there are not the necessary safeguards. As we understand it, there will be absolutely no limit. We have no idea how foundation trusts are going to respond to the lifting of the cap. We do not know and neither, with great respect, does the Minister. Why is he allowing this great risk to be taken with our national health service? The clause needs to be looked at very carefully in this place, and I know that it will be looked at very carefully in another place.
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Emily Thornberry
(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 c285-6 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:22:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766488
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766488
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766488