Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)

My Lords, I will speak very briefly at this late hour, having attached my name to Amendments 247 and 248, so ably and clearly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I will make two brief points. The first point is about the proposed duty to promote health improvement. The UK has a terrible state of public health. We are doing much worse than many other countries that we consider comparable, and that has huge human, social and economic effects. The social determinants of health—so many aspects covered by the Bill—are the major factor in why that is the case. Unless we take action, it will only get worse. My second point is about the second chief element of the proposed new clause: the Secretary of State’s duty to “reduce health inequalities”. The King’s Fund defines health inequalities as “avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different groups”. In assessing this issue, it points to life expectancy, which varies across England by almost a decade, and healthy life expectancy, which varies between the poorest and the richest areas by 18 years. My question to the Minister and the crowded Benches opposite, is: how can a Labour Government or Labour Peers oppose this amendment?