Last chance to save the NHS in the House of Lords

A new raft of privatising measures will be voted on tomorrow.

Tomorrow there will be a debate and vote critical to the future of the NHS in England. Labour Lord Philip Hunt has laid a fatal motion to try and kill the "Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations" that the government have issued under the Health and Social Care Act. The Regulations open up England’s NHS to competition on an unprecedented scale by putting the market at the heart of commissioning decisions.

When the government first released the regulations in February I wrote an article with Dr Lucy Reynolds explaining that they betrayed the political promises and assurances given when the government were struggling to get their Health and Social Care Bill passed. Public feeling against the regulations exploded. 38 Degrees launched a petition against them which now has over 360,000 signatures. This pressure, combined with strong criticism from the medical profession, Labour and even Liberal Democrats, forced the Department of Health to rewrite the regulations.

Unfortunately the revised regulations are little improved. The word "integration" was inserted a few times to address peoples’ fears that competition would increase fragmentation of services. However Regulation 5 dictates that a contract must be advertised for competition unless commissioners are satisfied that there is only one provider capable of providing the service. This is a narrow legal test vulnerable to challenge. Private companies could contest that they are "capable" of providing a service and entitled to bid for that business. Knowing this, commissioners are likely to cautiously avoid the potential for legal challenge by opening services to competition.

The regulations still break the promises given when the government were fighting to push the Health and Social Care Bill through parliament. Andrew Lansley promised prospective Clinical Commissioning Groups that they would decide "when and how competition should be used". Earl Howe promised that commissioners would have a "full range of options" and would not be under any legal obligation to "create new markets, particularly where competition would not be effective in driving high standards and value for patients".

The truth is that it will not be up to commissioners to decide if, when and how to use competition. Far from these reforms freeing GPs to do what’s best for patients, these Regulations bind them to an expensive bureaucratic market system of evaluating commercial tenders as advised by competition lawyers. David Lock QC, commissioned by 38 Degrees to provide a legal opinion on both sets of regulations, said that anyone who insists that they allow commissioners discretion to decide when and how to use competition is parroting "disingenuous nonsense".

"Disingenuous" is an apt word for the politicians here. Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones (who originally opposed the regulations and now supports the new ones) told me that the regulations simply apply EU procurement law and that commissioners are being given the maximum discretion possible within that framework. My contention is that the framework is a straitjacket and, as the politicians always intended EU procurement law to apply, it was thus utterly wrong to pretend that commissioners would have more freedom than this law allows. It makes those promises cynical, misleading and deceptive from the outset, as the necessary caveats would have rendered them meaningless.

The rationale for the reforms is a belief that market competition will drive up standards of care. But as others have pointed out, this faith in the market, like all faiths, lacks evidence. Commercial interests introduce perverse incentives that detract from the focus on duty of care and trust between doctor and patient. This isn’t evidence-based policy-making. This is an ideologically driven experiment being legally enforced before being tried and tested.

If we discover, as many fearfully predict, that these regulations serve to erode and undermine current NHS providers, leading to increasing privatization, rising costs and a reduction in quality of care, then how will we change course? Attempting to undo these reforms is likely to be extremely expensive and politically difficult, giving rise to claims from companies who could sue for compensation. There is a puzzling prioritisation of process here, rather than outcomes. The only guaranteed beneficiaries of this approach are those who will profit from winning new business.

Politicians may say that their hands are tied by EU laws, but make no mistake, this is a choice. Scotland and Wales have made different choices and are organizing their services differently, keeping the market out. There is something profoundly undemocratic about the English case. The NHS reforms were not outlined in the 2010 election, they didn’t appear in any party manifesto and they didn’t even feature in the Coalition agreement. Nobody voted for these changes. The Health and Social Care Act was extremely controversial, pushed through after many political promises were made and these Regulations prove that those promises were highly misleading.

Despairingly for our democracy, all three main parties have played their role in getting us to this point. The last New Labour government laid the path for the current regulations with their Principles and Rules of Cooperation and Competition, though the coalition now go further by turning suggestions into requirements. For all the talk of patient choice, people have been denied the choice that really matters - the choice of a citizen to collectively determine the provision of their national health service. Politicians have pushed through monumental reforms covertly, not by winning the argument openly, honestly and democratically. Peers will have the chance to vote in the Lords chamber tomorrow and the public are telling them how they feel. Will the politicians rise above party political point-scoring and have the big honest debate that all who rely on the NHS deserve?

NHS activists outside Parliament. Photo: Getty Images.

Nicola Cutcher is a freelance journalist and researcher.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.