I supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—or rather, I tabled it independently. I accepted at the time that it was not the most elegant way of dealing with the problem, but I recognise that there is a problem, as do foundation trusts. The cap as it stands has certain perverse consequences, and the NHS cannot fully profit from sources such as intellectual property. NHS profits help to subsidise public services. As the Minister has pointed out, there is no cap on non-foundation trusts, and the current format was to some extent a political compromise because Labour Members raised certain considerations during the passage of the legislation on foundation hospitals. That does not mean that their concerns were not valid at the time.
I am not concerned by the prospect of dramatic privatisation overnight; nor do I think that queue-jumping is the real danger. By abolishing the cap altogether, however, we run the risk that foundation trusts will run on the wrong side of state aid rules, and that their activity will be perceived as economic activity under EU competition law. The more they subsidise general NHS services, the more they will be perceived as engaging in economic activity.
I do not take a doctrinaire view on this issue. Very sensible people, such as Steve Field and the NHS Confederation, have raised the matter. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) raised it, as did, if I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury in a spirit of compromise in Committee, making the point—I think I am quoting her correctly—that the only alternative to a bad cap is not no cap at all.
There is a genuine fear, however, by people who are far more expert than most hon. Members in this field, which is caused by the blurring of the boundaries between public and private hospitals. We could end up theoretically with a private hospital that has 90% of its patients provided by the NHS. I know we cannot end up with an NHS hospital filled by 90% of private patients, but there is a threshold at which things could quite easily start to become complicated. This a critical issue, which will have to be dealt with in the House of Lords.
Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
John Pugh
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c291-2 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:24:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766504
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766504
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766504