Health Bill [HL]

The noble Lord does not misunderstand me. There would be risk for some people. One would certainly hope that there would not be risk for the employees of the trust, who would be regarded as preferential creditors. But there would be some risk, which should be priced into leasing contracts and other arrangements that the trust makes currently. That is part of the whole idea of creating this new entity called a foundation trust. I do not think that it is healthy that doing business with a foundation trust should be regarded as a risk-free exercise. That was never meant to be the case. Part of the significance of all this is the message that it sends out to the independent sector. Not only will it envy the fact that foundation trusts are to be 100 per cent underwritten by the taxpayer, it will also realise that the Department of Health’s view of what constitutes core NHS services does not include it. A medium secure mental health unit run by the private sector is every bit as integral to the delivery of core services as a foundation trust, yet the failure regime applicable to it would be quite different. How confident will the independent sector now be that it has a realistic long-term prospect of playing a significant role in the provision of NHS services? Not very. Part of the context of the creation of foundation trusts was the desire of the Government to create a plurality of health provision under the NHS umbrella, with providers competing on level terms. I say to the Minister again that the measures outlined in the Bill undermine that aim. Nevertheless, I rather suspected that I was not going to make much headway with these arguments. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is relieved about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 72 withdrawn.