Clause 1

Part of National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:30 am on 24 February 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of James Arbuthnot James Arbuthnot Conservative, North East Hampshire 10:30, 24 February 2015

Really I was making a joke. It is always a mistake to make a joke in Committee because it gets translated into undying words in Hansard, and  when one is 93 I assume one gets revisited by those words because Hansard has to make everyone appear to be deeply serious and sensible all the time. From time to time in Committee one has to have a bit of fun. The point I was making about being mechanically solid is that it is not entirely clear what solidarity means. That is why I have produced my amendments about cohesion and public benefit.

As it is not entirely clear what all this means, there is a risk that clause 1 will turn out to be fuzzy rubbish. I do not want to say that it is fuzzy rubbish for four main reasons. First, I do not want to be rude and it would be to say that it is fuzzy rubbish. Secondly, it is clear that the national health system is, with all its faults, one of the icons of our society. As I have said, we all in this Committee fundamentally believe in the NHS. We muck about with it at our peril. If we can tease out what it means, we want to achieve a comprehensive health service that operates on the basis of social solidarity. Thirdly, I believe that the hon. Member for Eltham is genuinely motivated by the good of the country and the national health service.

The fourth and most important reason is that clause 1 is not fuzzy rubbish. It is far from it. The two phrases,

“services of general economic interest”,

and operating,

“on the basis of social solidarity” have special meaning. They are terms of art. They are in the Bill for a purpose. It is true that they are the sort of “in” speech I hate, are understandable only to the initiated and the types of phrase that give lawyers and law a bad name, but it is the duty of each member of the Committee to set out to understand these phrases, the part they can play in the NHS and whether this proposed new law, set before us to change the existing order of things, is good or bad.