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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), but I do not think she did herself or her party any favours in trying to persuade my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me to follow her or her party's lead by launching a completely unacceptable attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh). The Minister seemed to be trying to win me over by describing me as ““the hon. Member for Cornwall””. His description stimulated my Cornish imperialist tendencies, and I was tempted to change that to ““Cornwall and bits of England””. However, I shall leave it for another Bill, perhaps one relating to boundary reviews. In his response, the Minister said that the cap was a ““blunt instrument””. I acknowledged that in my opening remarks: it is indeed a blunt instrument, which does not achieve what I think we all want it to achieve. However, although the current situation is not satisfactory, nor is the proposal to lift the cap. That too is a blunt instrument, as was made clear by many speakers this evening. I do not think the Minister entirely acknowledged that this is a conundrum that needs to be resolved. As I have said before, the Government are right to address the issue and are doing so with the best of intentions, but they have come up with the wrong answer. Indeed, lifting the cap is not an answer at all. Further work is needed, and deleting clause 168 would be a good start. As I have said, mine are probing proposals. I will support amendment 1165, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day). Mr Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).