No, because others want to speak.
I can assure the House that FTs will retain their principal legal purpose—to serve the NHS. This means that the majority of their income will continue to come from the NHS. With no shareholders, any profit they make will have to be ploughed back into the FT, and so will support that purpose of caring for NHS patients. The vast majority of FTs have little, if any, potential to increase private income, never mind the desire to do so. For them, NHS activity will remain the overwhelming majority of the work they do, if not all of their work. It is extremely unlikely that even the most entrepreneurial FTs with international reputations would seek to test the boundaries. Their commissioners, public and NHS staff governors would hold them to account in fulfilling their duties and serving their NHS patients.
For these FTs, however, the cap is a blunt instrument that harms NHS patients. FTs tell us that there is potential to bring extra non-NHS income into the NHS, for example, by developing the NHS's intellectual property, from innovations such as joint ventures and by using NHS knowledge abroad. Additional demand and income can help organisations to bring in leading-edge technology faster, including in the important area of cancer treatment. I hope that that goes some way to helping my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives. Opposition amendment 1165 would harm the NHS, and new clauses 19 and 22 would stop FTs providing private health care altogether. Many of the other protections proposed would be almost as damaging and reduce income.
We want to ensure that safeguards are appropriate, not harmful. For example, a prohibition on FTs offering privately the same services that they offer on the NHS would rule out most of their current private health care. It could even create perverse incentives to stop providing some services for some NHS patients. We are confident that private income benefits NHS patients. On reflection, we are proposing to explore whether and how to amend the Bill to ensure that FTs explain how their non-NHS income is benefiting NHS patients. We will also ensure that governors of FTs can hold boards to account for how they meet their purpose and use that income. I believe that that is an important move forward.
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Simon Burns
(Conservative)
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 c288-9 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:23:15 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766497
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766497
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766497