Lansley's bill has killed debate about the future of the NHS

There is a whole lot of politics and very little policy in the war over the government's health refo

Does any of the three main parties actually have a policy for the NHS? It may sound like a peculiar question given that huge stores of energy are currently being spent debating the future of the health service in parliament, but having a big argument in Westminster is not the same as having a coherent agenda.

The Health and Social Care Bill returns to the House of Lords this week and Liberal Democrat peers have some amendments covering the controversial section of the reforms dealing with increased competition between different providers. Crudely, speaking the vital question is how widely market forces will be allowed to operate when, under the new structures created by Andrew Lansley's reforms, GPs are given control over budgets and instructed to purchase the best value care for patients.

Lib Dems in the Lords want to rewrite parts of the Bill that would give the Competition Commission regulatory authority over healthcare. That, it is feared, would amount to a legal mandate for breaking up NHS "monopolies" and, if enough private providers complained about being shut out of contracts, forcing GPs to curtail their use of state services. In terms of the underlying principles of the Lansley project, this argument is pivotal; it is the big one. It is clear from the way the original bill was designed that the Health Secretary wants a radical acceleration of competition to be the main driver of change in the service. The logical extension of the reforms - as initially conceived - is for the NHS label to be, effectively, a kite mark, signalling that care has been paid for by the state and is being carried out by a licensed provider. It should, in theory, be irrelevant whether the people actually doing the caring are public or private sector employees.

It is also clear that the government is too scared to tell the public that this is what Lansley had in mind when he drafted the bill. It sounds and looks a little bit too much like privatisation, which is not a word the Tories want attached to their ambitions for the NHS. That makes it very hard for the government to fight the forthcoming battle in the Lords.

Number 10 is saying it is relaxed about amendments that might "clarify" this crucial section of the bill, but would be unhappy with substantial changes. Does that mean the Prime Minister insists on a level of competition from private providers that forcefully dismantles state monopolies? Or would he be satisfied with a watered down competition clause that amounts, in essence, to an extension of the "internal market" that existed under Labour? Another way of phrasing the question: does Cameron actually want to implement Lansley's vision or is he only pressing ahead with the bill to avoid the humiliation of abandoning a high-profile project in which he has already invested a lot of political capital?

The Lib Dem amendments have been sanctioned by Nick Clegg, largely, it seems, because he is aware of deep dissatisfaction in his party and fearful of being presented, come the next election, as an accomplice in Tory sabotage of a cherished national institution. But does he think a dramatic increase in competition from the private sector - policed by an anti-monopolies regulator - would be a driver of greater efficiency and quality of care in the health service? If the answer is "yes", why is he allowing his peers to sabotage the bill? If the answer is "no", why is he voting for any of this legislation?

As for Ed Miliband, his position is clear enough for an opposition leader. He has written in the Times today calling (again) for the bill to be scrapped. The issue of competition is addressed in passing:

Nor is the cause of integration helped by the Bill's aim to turn the whole NHS into a commercial market explicitly modelled on the privatisation of the utilities in the 1980s. Introducing a free-market model throughout the healthcare system -- quite different from the limited competition currently in place -- will have a chilling effect on the behaviour of those trying to co-ordinate and co-operate.

Another way of putting this might be that market forces are tolerable when Labour allows them to operate in a carefully controlled environment, but destructive and corrosive when unleashed by Tories and Lib Dems. Fair enough, I suppose, but it is a very queasy way of making peace with the Blairite legacy of public service reform. Nowhere else has Miliband dealt explicitly with the question of whether or not he thinks competition is a healthy or a pernicious mechanism for getting value for money in the public sector.

Which brings us back to that initial question. What is the three main parties' health policy? As far as I can make out it is as follows:

Conservatives: secure any version of Lansley's reforms, regardless of what the outcome will actually be for the NHS.

Labour: make sure every problem in the NHS is seen as a consequence of Lansley's reforms; avoid being drawn on alternative plans.

Liberal Democrats: look conspicuously worried about Lansley's reforms; in the event that they are enacted, hide.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The rise of the green mayor – Sadiq Khan and the politics of clean energy

At an event at Tate Modern, Sadiq Khan pledged to clean up London's act.

On Thursday night, deep in the bowls of Tate Modern’s turbine hall, London Mayor Sadiq Khan renewed his promise to make the capital a world leader in clean energy and air. Yet his focus was as much on people as power plants – in particular, the need for local authorities to lead where central governments will not.

Khan was there to introduce the screening of a new documentary, From the Ashes, about the demise of the American coal industry. As he noted, Britain continues to battle against the legacy of fossil fuels: “In London today we burn very little coal but we are facing new air pollution challenges brought about for different reasons." 

At a time when the world's leaders are struggling to keep international agreements on climate change afloat, what can mayors do? Khan has pledged to buy only hybrid and zero-emissions buses from next year, and is working towards London becoming a zero carbon city.

Khan has, of course, also gained heroic status for being a bête noire of climate-change-denier-in-chief Donald Trump. On the US president's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Khan quipped: “If only he had withdrawn from Twitter.” He had more favourable things to say about the former mayor of New York and climate change activist Michael Bloomberg, who Khan said hailed from “the second greatest city in the world.”

Yet behind his humour was a serious point. Local authorities are having to pick up where both countries' central governments are leaving a void – in improving our air and supporting renewable technology and jobs. Most concerning of all, perhaps, is the way that interest groups representing business are slashing away at the regulations which protect public health, and claiming it as a virtue.

In the UK, documents leaked to Greenpeace’s energy desk show that a government-backed initiative considered proposals for reducing EU rules on fire-safety on the very day of the Grenfell Tower fire. The director of this Red Tape Initiative, Nick Tyrone, told the Guardian that these proposals were rejected. Yet government attempts to water down other EU regulations, such as the energy efficiency directive, still stand.

In America, this blame-game is even more highly charged. Republicans have sworn to replace what they describe as Obama’s “war on coal” with a war on regulation. “I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations,” Trump announced in March. While he has vowed “to promote clean air and clear water,” he has almost simultaneously signed an order to unravel the Clean Water Rule.

This rhetoric is hurting the very people it claims to protect: miners. From the Ashes shows the many ways that the industry harms wider public health, from water contamination, to air pollution. It also makes a strong case that the American coal industry is in terminal decline, regardless of possibile interventions from government or carbon capture.

Charities like Bloomberg can only do so much to pick up the pieces. The foundation, which helped fund the film, now not only helps support job training programs in coal communities after the Trump administration pulled their funding, but in recent weeks it also promised $15m to UN efforts to tackle climate change – again to help cover Trump's withdrawal from Paris Agreement. “I'm a bit worried about how many cards we're going to have to keep adding to the end of the film”, joked Antha Williams, a Bloomberg representative at the screening, with gallows humour.

Hope also lies with local governments and mayors. The publication of the mayor’s own environment strategy is coming “soon”. Speaking in panel discussion after the film, his deputy mayor for environment and energy, Shirley Rodrigues, described the move to a cleaner future as "an inevitable transition".

Confronting the troubled legacies of our fossil fuel past will not be easy. "We have our own experiences here of our coal mining communities being devastated by the closure of their mines," said Khan. But clean air begins with clean politics; maintaining old ways at the price of health is not one any government must pay. 

'From The Ashes' will premiere on National Geograhpic in the United Kingdom at 9pm on Tuesday, June 27th.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496