Will the Lib Dems halt Hunt's backdoor NHS privatisation?

Health secretary promises to address "concerns" over Section 75 of the NHS bill after pressure from Lib Dems and Labour.

When the government's Health and Social Care Bill was finally passed by Parliament last year it was on the condition that GPs would not be forced to open up NHS services to private competition.

Andrew Lansley, the-then Health Secretary, told the Commons: "There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that promotes or permits the transfer of NHS activities to the private sector". In a letter to Clinical Commissioning Groups, he wrote:

I know many of you have read that you will be forced to fragment services, or put them out to tender. This is absolutely not the case. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that you as commissioners, not the Secretary of State and not regulators – should decide when and how competition should be used to serve your patients interests. 

Having accepted Lansley's assurances, the Lib Dems granted the bill their support. But new regulations published under Section 75 of the act flatly contradict the government's promises. The guidelines state that commissioners may only award a contract without competition if they are "satisfied that the services to which the contract relates are capable of being provided only by that provider". In practice, then, GPs will be forced to open up all NHS services to private companies, regardless of the wishes of local people, with the healthcare regulator Monitor granted the power to block any "unnecessary" restriction of competition. 

Secondary legislation like this is normally nodded through parliament without debate but Labour, smelling a rat, warned that the regulations amounted to an attempt at backdoor privatisation. Jeremy Hunt, Lansley's replacment as health secretary, initially sought to dismiss the opposition's concerns. In response to a question from Jamie Reed, the shadow health minister, he declared: "Who exactly are the section-75 bogeymen [he] hates: Whizz-Kidz, who are supplying services to disabled children in Tower Hamlets? Or Mind, which is supplying psychological therapy to people in Middlesbrough?"

But after the Lib Dems joined Labour in raising concerns, Hunt has been forced to think again. Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem health minister, told his party colleague Andrew George, one of those opposed to the regulations, "We are looking at this extremely seriously. Clear assurances were given in the other place during the passage of the legislation, and it is important that they are complied with in the regulations."

In reponse, as today's Guardian reports, Hunt has made it clear that he is prepared to rewrite the new guidelines. A source tells the paper: "We are aware that there are concerns over the wording and the way it may be interpreted. We are speaking to the Lib Dem peers to make sure they are happy. We want to make sure everyone is happy."

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, said in response: "The government has been caught out trying to force through privatisation of the NHS by the back door.

"This is another humiliating U-turn to add to the government list, but we believe ministers will stop at nothing to drive through their plans to put the NHS up for sale to the highest bidder."

But will this be anything other than a comestic rewrite? Ahead of the Lib Dems' spring conference next month, this is a key test of the party's nerve. 

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt speaks at the Conservative conference in Manchester last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.