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 Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.