More fundamentally, just as we asked about why the OFT has a role at all, why should the Competition Commission have any role in assessing how competition is developing in the NHS? The Minister claims that the Government have changed the Bill to make it clear that they do not want to promote competition as an end in itself, but the clause shows that that is simply not the case. The Government have tabled no amendments to this crucial clause. If they really wanted to say that competition was not an end in itself, they would not give the Competition Commission a role.
Owen Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether a financial threshold will also be applied in respect of the Competition Commission? I do not know how many millions that might be, but given that we now know that the size of a hospital’s turnover—I was not aware that hospitals had turnovers—will be the determining factor as to whether the OFT intervenes, will the same apply to intervention by the Competition Commission?
Liz Kendall: I look forward to the Minister’s response and to whether he will give us any new policies, as he did on the previous clause.
Paul Burstow indicated dissent.
Liz Kendall: The Minister shakes his head, but he knows that to be the case, as we will see. We want more details about what the reviews will cover. Will there be any thresholds? What expertise is there in the Competition Commission to do that work?
Amendment 235 would delete the requirement that the Competition Commission reviews the development of competition in the NHS. It is simple. If the Government say that that is not their primary goal, they should accept the amendment. Amendment 237 refers to clause 73, and I will remind hon. Members what that clause does. During the previous Committee stage, the Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, explicitly introduced a new clause 9 giving the Competition Commission
“powers to collect information to inform its reviews of the development of competition”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 17 March 2011; c. 886.]
in the NHS. The clause also gave the Competition Commission powers to impose penalties on any NHS organisation that does not comply with its request for information.
Column number: 466
Amendment 237 would delete the Competition Commission’s ability to issue penalties to NHS commissioners or providers if they do not comply with information requests, because that part of the Bill is unnecessary. Why is the Competition Commission taking on that role? If the Government are really doing what they say, which is to give all responsibility to a sector-specific regulator, why should the Competition Commission have a role in the reviews? If the Government are honest about the real role of the Bill and the clauses, they will acknowledge that they seek to promote competition. The organisations leading these changes are not sector specific. The Government should accept these amendments and delete these powers if they really want to make true their word to Future Forum.
Paul Burstow: This feels like the proverbial question, “Have you stopped kicking your dog yet?” No matter how I answer the question, I end up accepting that I have kicked my dog. I am certainly not prepared to accept the proposition that the hon. Lady is putting forward.
Owen Smith: They have shot the dog.
The Chair: Can we leave the dog out of it?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/health/110712/pm/110712s01.htm
). If these people agree with zero tolerance for the rest of us then .... awwwwww.
