Clause 12 - Prudential borrowing code
Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
4:45 pm
Dr Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 79 stands in my name, too. I do not expect the Minister to repeat what we have already said—I shall not do so, either—but we do not think that the Secretary of State should have the roles that the Government have given him, or that the borrowing should be against a limit for the Department of Health. We have already rehearsed that argument.
I shall briefly speak to amendment No. 248, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends only. It is a restatement of the concerns raised about the unfairness that might be introduced in the short to medium term, or at least until all trusts are foundation trusts. Before making the code, the regulator must have a specific duty to consult more widely than is set out in the clause, because there are other people who are affected by the detail and general principle of the borrowing ability and the prudential code, namely the users and staff in the health service.
This is one of the few parts of the Bill in which there is not even a gesture towards specifying that representatives or users of a part of the NHS that is as affected as the foundation trusts, but in what we would see as a deleterious way—the Minister really ought to accept that—at least in the interim, should be consulted. They should not be forgotten, because that way lies continuing strife in the health service. As the Minister knows, there is already concern that the measure will cause unfair two-tierism, and not bothering to mention that there will be consultation with the other group affected by the changes can only add to that.