David Owen's NHS bill offers a final chance to save our health service

Labour and the Lib Dems must support a bill that restores the right of all citizens to comprehensive care.

David Owen has today published in full a bill in the House of Lords to reinstate the NHS and the secretary of state’s legal duty to provide a national health service throughout England. This duty has been in force since 1948 and is the legal foundation of the NHS and our rights and entitlements to health care, a duty the coalition’s Health and Social Care Act 2012 is abolishing.

Owen’s 'reinstatement' bill puts into reverse the monstrous 473 H&SC Act, which from April this year abolishes the NHS throughout England, reducing it to a stream of taxpayer funds and a brand or logo for the public bodies and private companies which will receive them. The bill does not entail yet more disruptive reorganisation, it simply restores the democratic basis of the NHS and the rights and entitlements of all citizens to comprehensive care; rights which were shredded by the 2012 Act.

As Owen has warned: "the NHS has remained by far and away the most popular public service because people sense rationing and restrictions are inevitable, and resources limited but that they value and recognise the fairness of those decisions being taken not by market forces or quangos but by some overall democratic, open, transparent decision-making."

This bill comes at an important moment. Next week, Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt will determine the fate of Lewisham hospital and very soon the fate of many more hospitals as cuts and shareholders' profits bite deep into NHS budgets. By putting power into the hands of quangos, the government hopes to protect itself from the full force of public anger at the implementation of a four-year 'efficiency' plan expected to generate £20bn savings by 2014.

The plan, drawn up by US management consultants McKinsey on PowerPoint slides, the electronic equivalent of the back of a cigarette packet, has already led to the sacking of thousands of nurses and loss of services.

David Nicholson, the chief executive of the new NHS Commissioning Board, who appeared before the public accounts committee last week, warned of worse to come: "We are just going into a phase now where quite a lot of fairly contentious service change issues are surfacing." "Fairly contentious" makes a mockery of the scale of proposed losses and closures.

In north west London the government plans to cut 25 per cent of beds, and throughout London at least seven accident and emergency departments will close; 5,600 jobs in North West London will be lost by 2015, 4,000 in Merseyside, and thousands more in Rotherham, Devon and Cornwall, Bolton, and Portsmouth. Hospital closure and downgrading will take place in several major cities. Meanwhile, payments to private contactors continue to escalate, from those to management consultancies that have taken over from public officials, through expensive PFI deals involving payments that are contracted to rise each year, to outsourced services from which shareholders are seeking returns ranging from 15-25 per cent.

And yet the NHS returned over £2bn to the Treasury last year. Hospitals have deficits because the government chooses to load them with these costs, not because they are badly run. The government is manufacturing a financial crisis which is not of hospitals' own making.

The Health and Social Care Act legalises the break-up of the NHS under the efficiency plan. Some services will become the responsibility of local authorities and others will be the responsibility of private, for-profit firms; many services may no longer be provided free. For instance, mental health, immunisation and sexual health are being transferred to local authorities. Services for pregnant or breast-feeding women, for younger and older children, for the prevention of illness, even for the care of persons suffering from illness or needing after-care may no longer be mandatory parts of the free health service. In fact, pretty much everything is up for grabs.

MPs and the public have yet to realise that the Act will abolish the NHS by splitting up services in this way and removing the secretary of state’s control over provision. Unfairness has already been creeping in under existing rules. Two weeks ago the medical director of the NHS, Sir Bruce Keogh, admitted to the public accounts committee that for the last two years he has been "deluged by letters from people saying, 'This PCT isn’t paying for that', or that one PCT takes a different view on (entitlement of patients to) hip surgery or cataracts to another." We are outraged by the unnecessary pain this causes and authorities must be held to account for the denial of care. After April, when the Act is implemented, that will no longer be possible. Instead, a range of bodies not accountable to parliament, including for-profit companies, will decide which services will be freely available and who will receive them. That is no longer a national health service and people must understand that.

The coalition has deceived the public over the NHS. The Health and Social Care Act is not about making the service GP or patient-led, it is about abolishing the national service and transferring public funds and services to the private sector through a process of closure and the manufacture of a financial crisis. Loss of services coupled with new discretionary powers mean that people will be forced to pay out of their own pocket for more of their care. Owen’s bill exposes the truth behind the Act. For sixty years, the public , unlike their US cousins, had no fear of health care bills; this freedom from fear and commitment to the NHS model has stood the test of time. Will Labour and the Liberal Democrats support a Bill that restores the democratic and legal basis of the NHS and the principle of health care for all on the basis of need and not ability to pay?

Allyson Pollock is professor of public health policy and research at Queen Mary, University of London, and the author of NHS PLC

David Price is a senior research fellow at Queen Mary, University of London

Demonstrators protest against the proposed closure of the Accident and Emergency and maternity units at Lewisham hospital. Photograph: Getty Images.

 

Allyson Pollock is professor of public health policy and research at Queen Mary, University of London, and author of NHS PLC

David Price is a senior research fellow at Queen Mary, University of London

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.