Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lansley (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 3).


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

My hon. Friend is right in relation to the independent treatment centre contracts. They were constructed in a way that effectively removed most of the financial risk from the operators. For other private sector operators in the NHS that is not necessarily true. For example, most of us would recognise that private sector providers are instrumental to continued access to many NHS diagnostic services. There are providers who could fail and at the moment no regulatory structure is in place for that. Let us continue down the path of the implications of the removal of part 3, which the Labour party proposes. Part 3 includes clause 60. I am sure that Opposition Members are familiar with clause 60, having served in Committee for so long. It is the means by which, if the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) recalls, we can consider the application of Monitor's functions to adult social care. So precisely when we are legislating to be able to consider whether the implications of an issue such as that at Southern Cross are such that there should be an additional prudential regulatory regime, the Labour party would take away that opportunity.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c200 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Competition Health services Finance Health authorities General practitioners Private sector NHS Procurement NHS foundation trusts Social services Reorganisation Monitor NHS Commissioning Board
Legislation
Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk