A third of NHS contracts are going to private providers. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Since the government's reforms, a third of NHS contracts have gone to the private sector

"Fragmenting and privatising".

In terrible news for David Cameron, and a gift to Labour, a third of NHS contracts awarded since the government's health reforms have gone to the private sector.

The British Medical Journal analysed nearly 3,500 contracts awarded between April 2013 and August 2014, since the government's Health and Social Care Act kicked in last year, and found that 33 per cent of contracts had been handed to private sector providers.

These contracts are awarded by the controversial Clinical Commissioning Groups established by the new health reforms, led by GPs, which have the power to influence commissioning decisions for patients and organise the delivery of services.

Dr Mark Porter of the BMJ called the findings a demonstration of "creeping privatisation in the NHS since the Health and Social Care Act was introduced", and criticised the government, which he claims "flatly denied" that the reforms would amount to increasing privatisation.

This is a bad look for the Conservatives, for whom the NHS is already a toxic issue because of their unpopular restructuring. It also gives Labour the opportunity to continue its attack line that the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS. The shadow health secretary Andy Burnham has jumped on this story and done just that:

These figures blow apart Jeremy Hunt’s claim that ‘NHS privatisation isn’t happening’. It is happening and it is happening on his watch.

This is because contracts are being forced out onto the open market by David Cameron’s Health Act. Labour believes in protecting the public NHS and will repeal the rules that are fragmenting and privatising it.

The NHS of the future demands more integration. The problem with this Government’s policy is that it’s taking it in the opposite direction, towards more fragmentation.

These figures show what is at stake at the coming election. David Cameron’s Government is stealthily hiving off NHS services without the permission of the public.

This is a strong point for Labour, because it has a tangible answer to Cameron's tampering with the NHS: repealing the Health and Social Care Act if it wins the election. And such a policy will chime with an electorate that faces further, more painful, cuts to its public services in the near future.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.